Talk:Animal hoarding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Cats Portal This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article has a lot of POV issues, foremost being that it lumps all hoarders together -- Hoarders keep abnormally large numbers of animals for whom they do not provide even the most basic care. The sometimes hundreds of dogs or cats kept by a single hoarder generally show signs of abuse such as severe malnutrition, untreated medical conditions including open sores, cancers, and advanced dental and eye diseases, and severe psychological distress. In 80 percent of the cases studied, authorities found either dead or severely ill animals in hoarders' homes. Many hoarders make a serious effort to provide care, basic and otherwise. And "hundreds"? That's a gross exaggeration -- those numbers are extremely rare. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who wrote this page, but it is factually correct, and shows a strong understanding of the problem. Whatever effort hoarders make, is not nearly enough to take care of the numbers they keep. Hoarders "collect" as many animals as will physically fit on their property. It's unsanitary. Click on the ALDF link for more information. --Brianbeck 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not factually correct. As I said, it lumps all hoarders together. There needs to be some distance from this, as it's making gross overgeneralizations. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are coming from. The page does not "lump" anything. Hoarders BY DEFINITION will "collect" as many animals as they can. It's simply impossible to provide even basic care to the hoard. I'll go so far as to say that if someone is providing basic care successfully, they are not "hoarders" in the sense of seriously ill people who abuse large numbers of animals but "fanciers" -- who by definition groom and care for animals. I think you are confusing the colloquial term of hoarder, someone who perhaps has a large number of animals, with someone who has a problem. I think you should, as I suggested earlier, click on the links on the page. Cheers. --Brianbeck 03:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, the Illinois statute cited on one of the links defines hoarding as "nability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, shelter, and veterinary care, with this neglect often resulting in starvation, illness, and death." Cheers. --Brianbeck 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe ADDED the npov tag 22:52, 1 May 2006. The NPOV tag was unjustified. Zoe advised me that removing a tag repeatedly is vandalism. However, there never was an NPOV dispute until Zoe added the tag. Shouldn't that be vandalism?

It seems that Zoe should have added a dispute of factual accuracy instead NPOV. The claim appears to be that the facts are wrong. On the other hand, the sources listed are adequate as to the factual accuracy.

I'm trying not to be disagreeable, but I'm disaggreeing that it's even possible to disagree!!! Animal hoarding is criminal. You can't defend it, just as you can't defend murder, child abuse, armed robbery, or sexual harrassment. The notion that animal hoarding is "good for the animals" is entirely new to my ears. If anything the article should be locked to before Zoe's edit on May 1. --Brianbeck 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag indicates that only one point of view of the subject has been addressed. Just because there wasn't a dispute before doesn't mean that there can't be one now. This should be resolved with discussion, not more reversions. --InShaneee 00:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss. Look at this page. Who is doing the discussion here? Does Zoe know anything about this topic? Can you please explain to me what the other side of the issue is? --Brianbeck 01:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Zoe's original comment here sums up the problems with this page. --InShaneee 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem that occurs with hoarding! Did you check any of the links? Should I list the exact instances? --Brianbeck 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a factual dispute and not a POV dispute? --Brianbeck 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's POV because presently it presents the 'point of view' that animal hoarders are bad people and that the situation always ends in disaster (while that may be the most likely outcome, it is not a certainty). --InShaneee 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The introductory sentence gives a definition of the phenomenon. "Animal hoarding is a human behaviour that involves the keeping of higher than typical numbers of animals as pets without having the ability to properly house or care for them, while at the same time denying this inability (emphasis mine). So as long as someone merely keeps an unusual number of pets that are properly cared for he isn't practising hoarding. I also don't see where animal hoarders are made to look "bad". It is an animal welfare issue, one that happens thankfully only rarely but is quite capable of overwhelming a local shelter. Dr Zak 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Zoe says that "Many hoarders make a serious effort to provide care, basic and otherwise." If someone knows that the situation is overwhelming he isn't by definition an animal hoarder. The POV tag is misplaced, this is at most a definition issue.

But that's not true. Many hoarders do seriously make an effort to provide care for their animals, but they find themselves overwhelmed and their animals suffer. They're still hoarders, but they do still attempt to care for their animals. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There argument here is that it is not true (that's not true). First, isn't that a factual dispute, not a NPOV dispute? Second, I suspect it would be more acceptable to show that the facts are disputed, rather than to say that it just isn't true.--Brianbeck 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. One occasionally reads press releases from the RSPCA or other charities, saying that so-and-so many pets have been recovered from somewhere and that they are in poor condition. However, the sheer scale of the problem should be enough to open anyone's eyes and seek outside help, unless they are seriously obsessive-compulsive. Dr Zak 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, here's my solution. We understand that the definition includes harm coming to the animals. If we don't understand that, we need to read the article again and again until we do. Now, if someone wants to argue that neglectful harm to animals is a *good* thing, go right ahead. Otherwise the NPOV tag is preposterous. You can't argue about a tangent that's NOT INCLUDED in the definition of the term... Rainman420 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is unwarranted, as we're describing a behavior. Animal hoarding is collecting more animals than can be cared for, so whether the person tries to accomplish the impossible has little bearing on the eventual outcome, which is bad. Good people can do bad things, everyone knows this, we don't need to go through every article on every bad thing and explicitly state it. For anyone who wants some more reinforcing information, here's an extra source: Psychiatric Times --Trylobyte 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Name of the article 2 Combining with Cat hoarding 3 Definition of the term; Distinguishing with animal keeping 4 Stub? 5 Very American-centric

[edit] Name of the article

The name of the article is POV. (Isn't there a dispute tag for that?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No. That's the accepted word for the phenomenon. [1]], [2] [3] Dr Zak 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree with the Dr, here. That is the recognized term. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the nomenclature is the problem. I think the article should describe a mental disorder. This mental disorder is accepted in veterinary medicine, and my edits have been focusing on making the article adhere to the standard described in veterinary literature.--Brianbeck 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combining with Cat hoarding

Cat hoarding is logically a subdivision of animal hoarding. I think that article should be joined with this article.--Brianbeck 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that cat hoarding is the same as animal hoarding. --WikiCats 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of the term; Distinguishing with animal keeping

I think the real problem that those who want to keep the NPOV view article here is that we may all be talking about the same thing and agreeing with each other BUT WE NEED TO GET OUR DEFINITIONS STRAIGHT. There obviously is a spectrum: on one end you have people with one pet, say a goldfish. Then you have your regular owner, say one or two-- upwards of five companion animals. The spectrum isn't quite linear; somewhere in there are people who live in the country and keep not only "regular" companion animals but horses, goats, and even llamas (they're big in Oregon). The same group will often raise livestock which is also to be differentiated from companion animals. Then you have people who engage in dog breeding or cat breeding. After a certain point, there is animal hoarding. The number of animals on the property are so great, and the capabilities of the owner with respect to supporting the pets so minimal, that it is hard to categorize this type of ownership on the same spectrum with other forms of pet ownership. Yet the occurence of this phenomenon is not isolated. The people who engage in it are found to share a number of common characteristics, symptoms if you will. Animal hoarding should be reserved only for this category of "pet ownership" (I hesitate to use the term). When does pet ownership become hoarding? It's pretty obvious. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, you'll know it when you see it. And btw an animal hoarder probably would classify herself as a breeder. Finally, should not the fact that this is a problem already recognized by the veterinary community mean anything? That is gaining widespread recognition in the psychiatric community as well?--Brianbeck 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially pathognomic is the recidivism rate. One of the papers up at the Tufts site says that it is almost 100 %. Dr Zak 22:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub?

Is this really a stub anymore? It seems pretty exhaustive to me.--Ben Applegate 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very American-centric

This article is very heavily focused on the phenomenon of animal hoarding in America. Which is quite understandable, considering that it is not a very important topic and most of Wikipedia's editors are American. I don't feel as though I have the relevant expertise to try and discuss the problem of animal hoarding in other countries and legal issues, but I'd certainly suggest it for anyone who has the time and inclination. Cheers! JF Mephisto 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)