Hoarding of animals is keeping the higher number of animals higher than normal as domestic pets without the ability to care for or maintain them properly while at the same time denying this inability. Compulsive stockpiling can be characterized as a symptom of mental disorder rather than a deliberate cruelty to animals. The hoards are very attached to their pets and find it very difficult to let the pets go. They usually can not understand that they damage their pets by not providing proper care. Hoarders tend to believe that they provide the right amount of care for them. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty provides the "Dump Prevention Team", which works with hoarders to help them reach the number of manageable and healthy pets.
Video Animal hoarding
Characteristics of hoarder
Animal hoarders store an enormous amount of pets for their place, and fail to care for them properly. A hoarder is distinguished from animal breeders, who will have many animals as a major component of their business; this difference can be a problem, as some riders are former ranchers who have stopped selling and caring for their animals, while others will claim to be breeders as a psychological defense mechanism, or in the hope of preventing intervention. Gary Patronek, director of the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University, defines hoarding as "pathological human behavior that involves the compulsive need to acquire and control animals, coupled with the failure to recognize their suffering". According to another study, the distinguishing feature is that a hoarder "fails to provide animals with adequate food, water, sanitation, and animal care, and... denies about this inability to provide adequate care." Along with other compulsive hoarding behaviors, it is related in DSM-IV for obsessive compulsive disorder and obsessive compulsive personality disorder. DSM-5 includes a diagnosis of hoarding disorders.
Or, animal hoarding may be associated with addiction, dementia, or even focus delusions.
The number of animals involved alone is not a decisive factor in identifying hoarding. Rather, the problem is the inability of the owner to provide care for the animal and the owner's refusal to recognize that both animals and households are deteriorating. For example, in one case of animal hoarding, 11 cats were seized from a trailer. The deputy police officer testified that the trailer smelled of piss and dirt so bad that despite a severe congestion during the investigation, he had trouble staying there for more than a few minutes. The deputy further testified that he could not go anywhere in the trailer without stepping on fresh, old, or stained dirt, and even the stove and sink were full of cat litter. However, a Canadian woman, who died and left 100 cats who were fed properly, bathed, castrated, vaccinated, and treated, was not considered a pet because her animal was well cared for.
The Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC) identifies the following characteristics as common to all hoards:
- The accumulation of many animals, which has exceeded that person's ability to provide even minimal nutritional, sanitary, and animal care standards;
- Failure to recognize deteriorating animal conditions (including illness, hunger, and even death) and household environments (conditions too dense, very unhealthy); and -
- Failure to recognize the negative effects of the collection on their own health and wellbeing, and on other household members.
Compulsive stockpiling can be characterized as a symptom of mental disorder rather than a deliberate cruelty to animals. The hoards are very attached to their pets and find it very difficult to let the pets go. They usually can not understand that they damage their pets by not providing proper care. Hoarders tend to believe that they provide the right amount of care for their pets. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty provides the "Dump Prevention Team", which works with hoarders to help them reach the number of manageable and healthy pets.
Maps Animal hoarding
Legal solutions
United States
Statute of Cruelty Against Animals
In the United States, animal hoarders may be prosecuted under state animal cruelty laws for failing to provide certain levels of care to their animals. The following provides some examples of current standards. In Alaska, cruel laws define minimum standards of care for animals that include (1) food and water sufficient to maintain every animal in good health; (2) an environment compatible with the protection and maintenance of good animal health and safety; and (3) reasonable medical care at the time and extent available and necessary to maintain healthy animals. Similarly, in Colorado, a person commits animal cruelty if he intentionally, recklessly, or by criminal negligence removes the animal required sustenance, neglects any animal, allows the animal to be placed in a manner that leads to chronic or serious repetition. physical damage, or failure to provide animals with proper food, drink or protection from weather consistent with the species, species, and species of animals involved. In the Colorado animal cruelty laws, "neglect" means failure to provide food, water, protection from elements, or other treatments normally considered normal, ordinary, and accepted for animal health and wellness consistent with species, breeding, and animal species.
Because failure to provide proper care for animals is an act of omission or neglect rather than affirmative action, the failure to care for animals is considered a violation of lawlessness in most states. For example, in Alaska, if an animal owner fails to provide the standard of care mentioned earlier, the state has prima facie evidence of failure to care for animals. If the prosecutor can prove the failure of the owner to treat the animal done with criminal negligence and failure to care for the animal causing death or severe physical pain or prolonged suffering, then the owner may be guilty of Class A crime. In Colorado, failure to provide animals with a standard appropriate care is a Class 1 violation. In Virginia, each owner must provide each animal companion: adequate feed; enough water; adequate shelter cleaned properly; sufficient space in the main enclosure for a particular animal species depending on age, size, species, and weight; adequate exercise; adequate care, maintenance, and transportation; and animal care when necessary to prevent suffering or disease transmission. Violation of these standards is a Class 4 violation. A second or subsequent violation may result in a higher class violation. Likewise, under the Virginia animal cruelty laws, anyone who removes any animal required food, drink, shelter or emergency animal care is a class 1 mistake.
However, some states, such as California and New Hampshire, can provide criminal provisions to deprive necessary animals, beverages, and shelter. In Colorado, it is a 6th grade crime over second or subsequent beliefs about animal cruelty. In Maine, a person guilty of cruelty to an animal may face criminal or civil charges at the discretion of a state lawyer.
Penalty Under the Statute of Cruelty Against the Animals Country
Punishment for failing to provide appropriate care or medical care for animals under state animal cruelty laws may include fines, animal confiscation, maintenance costs for confiscated animals, and jail time. Since hoarding of animals is sometimes associated with mental illness, the situation can arise when an alleged abduction of an animal is found incompetent to stand trial for mental disability and thus remain the rightful owner of the animal he has neglected (ie, a scorched animal). In the issue of the Protective Order Jean Marie Primrose, for example, after receiving a vet from the vet, police confiscated 11 cats from covered dirt and female urine, rat-infested rats in Oregon; the cats were then placed in the care of a rescue organization. The woman is accused of second degree animal negligence. After being diagnosed with a mild case of mental retardation, the judge ruled that the woman could not help and assist in her own defense. The second degree of accusation is thus rejected. Because the woman was not punished for the crime, her right to the 11 cats did not get hit. However, since the cat was arrested at the time of dismissal, the rescue organization spent over $ 30,000 for cat care fees. Therefore, the rescue organization puts the cat's lien, which means she can not return the cat until he has paid the debt. After the dismissal, however, the woman never attempted to contact the rescue organization about returning her cat. The fate of the cat therefore remains in limbo. Rescue organizations may (1) keep cats and continue to receive care fees because they, not legitimate owners, can not place cats at home or (2) forgive debts and return cats to the woman. Because the rescue organization feels that the woman is unable to care for the cat adequately and because the organization does not want to invest more money that is likely to remain uncompensated, the organization petitioned for limited protection orders as a fiduciary for care and placement. of the cat. The wills court ruled against the organization, but the appeals court overturned a lower court order and declared that the probate court did indeed have the authority to include limited protection orders under ORS 125.650 as "fiduciary needed to carry out the protection order." The Supreme Court justices, then, gave limited protection orders and the organization was allowed to put the cat into a new home. This case is considered a landmark by the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
In addition to jail time, animal confiscation, and fines, a country, such as California, could allow the court to order psychological counseling on court policy or may require the accused to undergo anger management, as is the case in Colorado. The prosecutor may also ask for a ban on the ownership of a pet in the future or request limits on the number of animals that a person may hold responsible. For example, in ALDF v.Conyers, more than a hundred dogs and nine birds were confiscated from the houses of the defendants. About 70 of the dogs had severe mouth disease, disintegrating jaws, and injured corneas. One dog, locked up in the basement, could barely stand and continued to contaminate himself, causing his skin to be scalded from urine and dirt. An officer also noticed the dog's tongue hung in his mouth, but later learned that his tongue was sticking out because his jaw had been crushed. The Legal Protection Fund Animal moved to a permanent order to order the defendant to have an animal from the date of the final judgment to 10 years.
Criticizing the Application of Cruelty Laws on Hidden Animals
Although animal hoarders may be prosecuted under state animal cruelty laws, many experts argue that the basic animal cruelty laws are inefficient in demanding hoarders. As Stephan Otto, the director of legislative affairs for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, says, "Only a handful of countries allow criminal charges for the worst types of animal neglect... They also need a stronger law that considers when some number of animals are involved in a case. "HARC's study of 56 animal hoard cases illustrates Otto's point:
In sixteen cases, individuals were charged with an animal cruelty to their entire animal group rather than a count of cruelty to every animal involved. In some other cases, hoards are charged only with a failure to license or rabies vaccination when there are dozens of animals involved.
Prosecutors and judges, however, prevent some allegations, believing that they "clog" the system. The difficulty of proving every cost also caused this disappointment. To bring one accusation of cruelty to every animal, the animal prosecutor and agency must provide evidence of cruelty to each animal, matching each animal with its count number. Charging a hoarder with just one count reduces the burden on the system, the prosecutor and the animal agent, but undermines the allegation.
Hosed Specific Law
Currently, only two countries have special animal hoarding laws: Illinois and Hawaii.
Enacted in 2001, the Illinois Humane Care for Animal Act has been amended to include a companion animal accompaniment definition and psychological counseling mandate for animal hoarders in violation of Part 3. A person convicted of violating section 3 of the Act (requiring the provision of food and water, adequate protection and protection from weather, animal care, and humane care and care) are guilty of minor offenses with second or subsequent violations that increase violations of Class 4 crime. A commentator, Victoria Hayes, JD, believes that despite Illinois's legal definition of "companion animal companion" is a step in that direction, the definition does not provide additional tools to the prosecutor. The hoarding of animals itself is not prohibited by law, he said, prosecutors still have to show violation of Part 3 of the Law on Human Rights for Animals. It is important to note that the hoarding of animals itself is not prohibited by the laws of Illinois.
Hawaii, on the other hand, specifically forbids animal hoarding. In 2008, hoarding of animals became a minor offense. The Hawaii KUHP now provides:
(1) An item commits an offense of the stockpile if the person is intentional, conscious, or reckless;
- (a) Having more than fifteen dogs, cats, or a combination of dogs and cats;
- (b) Failure to provide the necessary sustenance for each dog or cat; and
- (c) Fails to correct the condition in which a dog or cat lives, where conditions adversely affecting dogs, cats, or the health and well-being of the owner result from the person's failure to provide the necessary sustenance.
(2) An accumulation of animals is a simple crime.
Hawaiian law specifically criminalizes hoarding, while robbing an animal of the required sustenance may also constitute a violation separate from cruelty to the animal. The law of stockpiling is different from the ordinance that limits the number of pets a person can own because it only prohibits the maintenance of more than fifteen dogs and cats if the owner fails to provide the necessary care for the animal and that the failure caused injury to the animal or its owner.
An important aspect of this law is that prosecutors may be able to charge a hoarding fee with a single stockpile of animals covering all animals. When stockpiling is prosecuted under state animal cruelty laws, the prosecutor must charge the hoarder with various animal cruelties - one for each animal in the place. By creating a "hoards" law violation Hawaii seems to allow prosecutors to accuse hoarders with a single stockpile of animals covering every animal that the man has stockpiled, reducing the burden of prosecution to provide documentation for any animal injury. This will also reduce the tricky burden that can be incurred by many costs in court. The prosecutor will also be able to bring charges that are separate from animal cruelty to the individual animal whose culprits are easiest to document.
Hawaiian legislation does not mandate psychological counseling for innocent catchers or restricting animal ownership in the future.
Anti-hoarding laws have been proposed, but not confirmed, in some other countries.
Filing County City Act
While the state may not have animals that stockpile specific laws, the municipality may have certain animal hoarding rules. For example, the city of Alto, Georgia's regulation specifically prohibits hoarders. The ordinance defines a hoarder as a person or entity that:
(A) Collecting animals and failing to provide humane/adequate care;
(b) Collecting dead animals not disposed of as required by this article; or (C) Collect, house, or harbor animals in dirty, unhealthy conditions which constitute a health hazard for stored animals, and/or animals or residents of adjacent property.
If a person is punished for being a hoarder under this rule, that person may not own, possess, or possess in that place in any animal Alto for a year from the date of confidence. The person may also be punished by a fine not exceeding $ 1,000.00 and/or by jail in a municipal jail not exceeding six months.
The Animal Legal Coalition has a Model Animal Species Ordinance (available under "Resources" on its website) that can be adapted by various communities.
More controversially, a municipality may limit the number of pets a person is allowed to stay at home in the hope of preventing the accumulation of animals. This is called a pet restriction regime. Gary J. Patronek, in Animal Landfill, City Counsel 6 (2001), states that pet restriction rules "are very unpopular, difficult to enforce, and are likely to be opposed by pet breeders ', breeders', and extended rescue groups. and animal protection organizations. "Although special hoarding regulations, such as Alto, prohibit the maintenance of many animals in conditions that are harmful to animal health, pet restriction rules only prohibit the storing of more than a certain number of animals regardless of the level of care given to animals. As mentioned earlier in this article, the number of animals involved is not a decisive factor in identifying hoarding and it is possible for a person to successfully treat large numbers of animals. Examples of pet restriction procedures include: Aurora, Colorado, and Banks County, Georgia. In Banks County, Georgia, the number of dogs a person can have differently based on the zone in which a person's property is located.
Some pet restriction rules, however, provide exceptions to pet restrictions. For example, in Great Falls, Montana, someone who owns or keeps more than the number of dogs and cats permitted by the regulations for a period of more than thirty (30) days must obtain a double animal permit. In addition, a breeder may be exempt from the rules by obtaining Licensed Breeder Hewani Hewani Many. These exceptions, no doubt, are provided to reduce the opposition and the pet restriction procedure.
Problems with Hoarder Proponent
The prosecution of animal hoarding cases is "complicated, time-consuming, and costly, as is evidenced in the Primrose case, the high cost of rescued animal care from hoards, which is often to be treated at rescue costs, is a major disincentive to prosecution of such cases. Especially since the animal rescue operation can never be compensated for the cost, furthermore, as described by Dr. Gary Patronek, "[p] the oppressor does not really have the tools they need to fully go after these cases... and they often do not have the support of other agencies they need. "Lack of communication among various government agencies, such as code enforcement, health departments and animal control, inhibits detection of animal hoarders and thus further prosecution, as animal stockpiling cases are not getting widespread attention, they do not get community support, which is also a disincentive for prosecution. In addition, officials may choose to no longer charge or enter into a plea bargain in exchange for custody of animals because they fear that animals will languish in temporary shelters while prosecutions are still waiting.This effort to "balance between helping the rescuers and animals involved "is generally ineffective because of the high level of recidivism among hoarders.While the hoarder is prosecuted there is a wide inconsistency in the number and severity of the indictment brought in. This inconsistency may arise because some prosecutors and judges s reduce a lot of costs, they "men yumbat "system. The difficulty of proving each cost also causes this inconsistency. To bring one accusation of cruelty to every animal, the animal prosecutor and agency must provide evidence of cruelty to each animal, matching each animal with its count number. Instead, accusing the hoarder with just one count reduces the burden on the system, the prosecutor, and the animal agents, but undermines the allegations. Laws that create a separate breach of animal hoarding can solve this problem by allowing a stockpile to be brought in each case that covers the accumulation aspect of the charge rather than focusing on each individual's cruelty count.
United Kingdom
In Britain, an RSPCA spokesman said the public was campaigning for legislation to monitor people who took many animals.
Dangerous animal hazards
Health issues in stockpiling include various concerns related to individual and public health. The stockpiling of animals is the cause of many health risks that threaten dumped animals, people living in the landfills, and surrounding neighbors.
Health effects on animals
Due to the harmful effects on the health of the animals involved, hoarding of animals is considered a form of cruelty to animals. Hoards often fail to provide basic care for their animals, resulting in illness and often death. The major animal health issues involved are malnutrition and problems related to density and neglect. The hoarding consequences are long lasting and continue to affect animals even after they are saved and given better care.
Malnourishment
Lack of adequate food and water is a common feature of the stockpiling situation. The immediate consequences of this are starvation and death. One study found that at least one dead animal was present in more than half of the cases examined, the main cause of death was the shortage of food and water supplies. Malnourishment also causes increased susceptibility to disease, and the animals that are stockpiled are often in advanced stages of the disease. Furthermore, when food supplies are limited, animals can use aggressive behavior in competing for available food, killing and sometimes even eating other animals.
Excess
Stacking also leads to acute animal health problems in a landfill situation. The number of animals found in the case of stockpiling ranges from tens to several hundred, with extreme cases involving more than a thousand animals. Animals locked up in houses, apartments, or trailers. In one case, 306 cats were removed from the home, 87 of them dead. The corpse was found embedded in the chimney and living room furniture. In addition to the lack of living space, overcrowding facilitates the spread of disease among animals. Furthermore, in cases where more than one species is limited to the same living space, animals may pose a danger to each other due to inter-species aggression.
Owner ignore
Other health problems arise from the negligence and inability of landfills to provide basic care for animals. Lack of veterinary attention is important among them. Hoards, refusing to recognize the deteriorating health condition of their animals and fearing they will be forced to surrender, often refusing to bring their animals to the veterinarian. As a result, the disease is not treated and allowed to become more severe. Another problem related to negligence is poor sanitary conditions for animals. Basic animal waste management does not exist in almost all animal hoarding situations, and the animals are dirty and often infected with parasites as a result. Furthermore, animals suffer behaviorally due to lack of socialization caused by the absence of normal interactions with other animals.
Enduring Consequences
Many of these health problems continue to cause suffering even after the animals are saved. A tense animal shelter or a humane society, forced to prioritize when confronted with many rescued animals, may not be able to provide immediate care to many animals. In addition, many animals are saved, because of health or behavior problems, may not be suitable for adoption. Euthanasia, even in cases where animals are not outside of rehabilitation, is often the only option for saved animals. The effects of accumulation on the health and socialization of the animals involved are so severe and lasting, taking great weight on their physical and psychological well-being.
Health effects on humans
Animal hoarding also causes many health problems for the people involved. Hoards, by definition, fail to improve the deteriorating sanitary conditions of their living spaces, and this poses some health risks for those living in and around the hoarding dwellings. Animal hoarding is at the root of a series of human health issues including poor sanitation, fire hazards, zoonotic diseases, envenomation, and self-ignorance and dependents.
Sanitation issues
Poor sanitation practices, a common characteristic of household landfills, pose health risks for animals and humans. In typical dwelling habitation, animal waste is found to coat the interior surfaces, including beds, tables, and cabinets. In one case, the floor and other surfaces were found covered in a layer of stool and six-inch trash.
In addition to a severe odor that can cause disruption to the neighbors, animal waste raises serious health risks both through the spread of parasites and the presence of dangerous levels of ammonia. OSHA, the United States agency that regulates air quality standards in work-related environments, has identified the level of ammonia 300 parts per million as life-threatening to humans; in most cases the ammonia-level accumulation in the residential space is close to this figure, requiring the use of protective clothing and respiratory clothing during inspection or intervention. In extreme cases, the level of ammonia in the hoardhouse is 152 parts per million even after ventilation.
The presence of animal waste also prevents sanitary storage and food preparation, which puts the population at risk for foodborne diseases and parasites. Insect infestations and rodents can follow and aggravate the hoarding conditions, and potentially spread to the surrounding environment including to nearby buildings. In one case, the primary school had to be closed due to a flea infestation that had spread from the nearby hoards of dogs.
Hoards are often found to collect large quantities of inanimate objects beside the animals, thus causing chaos as well. Stuffed items may include newspapers, garbage, clothing, and food; chaos impedes normal movement around the house, inhibits household care and sanitary food preparation, increases the risk of accidents, and contributes to overall poverty levels. Lack of functioning toilets, sinks, electricity, or proper heating (often because a hoarder does not pay bills, although poor treatment can also be the cause) further exacerbates the problem. Fire hazards include other health issues associated with poor sanitation; the chaos found in many retaining households prevents a workable fire extinguisher plan and serves as a possible fuel when located close to a heat source. Risks are amplified when hoarders, due to malfunctioning heating systems, look for alternative heating methods such as fireplaces, stoves, or kerosene heaters.
Zoonotic Disease
Another human health problem caused by the accumulation of animals is the risk of zoonotic disease. Defined as "human disease acquired from or transmitted to other vertebrate animals", zoonotic disease can often be deadly and in all cases a serious public health problem. Examples of known zoonotic diseases include plague, influenza, and rabies. Common pets are a large part of the animals that carry zoonoses, and as a result, humans who are involved in an animal stocking situation are at risk of contracting the disease. Zoonoses that may arise in a landfill situation - via vectors such as dogs, cats, or mouse bites - include rabies, salmonellosis, cat fever, hookworm, and ringworm. One of the zoonoses of particular concern is toxoplasmosis, which can be transmitted to humans through cat litter or poorly prepared flesh, and is known to cause severe birth defects or stillbirth in the case of pregnant women who are infected. The risk of zoonotic disease is reinforced by the possibility of a community epidemic.
Child abuse/abuse and/or parents
Problems of self-abandonment and neglect of parents and children are also health issues associated with animal hoarding. Ignoring oneself can be defined as "the inability to provide goods or services to meet basic needs", and has proven to be "an independent risk factor for death". While self-neglect is a condition commonly associated with parents, riders of all ages can and do suffer for it. This is shown by the fact that the hoarding lifestyle often corresponds to the deteriorating sanitary conditions that surround them. Child and parental abuse occurs when the dependent lives with the hoarder. According to a study, live dependents with hoarders in more than half of cases. Like animals, hoarders often fail to provide adequate care for dependents, both young and old, who suffer from lack of basic needs and health problems caused by unhealthy conditions. In one case, two children from a couple who were hoarding 58 cats and other animals were forced to repeat kindergarten and first grade due to excessive absence due to respiratory infections. Ignoring myself and ignoring dependents is a major human health issue of animal hoarding.
Mental health issues
Evidence suggests that there is a "strong mental health component" in animal hoarding, although it has not been explicitly associated with certain psychological disorders. Models that have been projected to explain the stockpiling of animals include delusional disorders, attachment disturbances, obsessive-compulsive disorders, zoophilia, dementia, and addiction. However, direct evidence for most is still lacking.
Delusional disorder
Riders show symptoms of a delusional disorder because they have "belief systems that are not related to reality". Almost all hoarders have no insight about the extent of damage in their habitat and on the health of their animals, refusing to admit that something is wrong. Furthermore, hoards may believe they have "a special ability to communicate and/or empathize with animals," rejecting any offer of help. The delusional disorder is an effective model because it offers an explanation of the obvious blindness of the horseman to the reality of their situation.
Attachment annoyance
Another model that has been suggested to explain animal hoarding is the disruption of attachment, which is mainly due to poor parent-child relationships during childhood. It is characterized by the inability to form "close relationships [with other humans] in adulthood". As a result, those who suffer from the attachment disorder may turn to animals for companionship. Interviews with landfills have revealed that hoards have frequently experienced domestic trauma in childhood, which is the basis of evidence for this model.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder
Perhaps the strongest psychological model proposed to explain animal hoarding is the obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The extraordinary sense of responsibility for something is characteristic of people with OCD, who then take unrealistic steps to fulfill their obligations. Animal hoarders often feel a strong responsibility to care for and protect animals, and their solution - to get as many animals as possible - is unrealistic. Furthermore, stockpiling, by the majority of animal hoarders, is a fairly common occurrence in people with OCD. The relationship between animal hoarding and this obsessive-compulsive disorder suggests that OCD may be a useful model in explaining animal hoarding behavior. However, this theory has also been disputed by some; Dr. Akimitsu Yokoyama theorizes that the stockpiling of animals can be explained by using Asperger's syndrome.
Popular culture and fiction
- In the Animal Planet TV series Confessions: Animal Hoarding, friends and family of hoardsmen intervene to offer their support to make changes in the form of psychological assistance and animal care or placement for pets they.
- In the animated series The Simpsons , the hoarding of animals is represented by the Crazy Cat semi-recursing character Lady Eleanor Abernathy. She is a mentally ill old woman who is covered by a cat, who is often seen talking nonsense and throwing cat to people.
- In Ann Bannon's novel, Journey to a Woman , Vega's mother and grandfather have so many cats and can be considered an animal rider.
See also
- Cat Woman
- Compulsive hoarding
- Geriatric medicine
- Monomania
References
External links
- Confessions: Animal Hoarding in Animal Planet
- Animal Documentary Project
- Inside Animal Hoards (with video)
- People who Hoard Animals, Psychiatric Time
- Hoard, Humane Society of the United States
- The Consortium of Veterinary Researchers, Tufts University
- Animal Hoards, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
- Animal Legal Protection Fund
- Hoarding the Animals: Alone in the Crowded Room
- News and information on animal hoarding and large-scale animal cruelty
- Mary Chantrell, the famous 19th-century Cat Hoarder
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments