Animal Hoarding In Depth
This page is an in-depth counterpart to the introduction to animal hoarding. We suggest first reading the introduction to hoarding, which includes tips for recognizing hoarding and how to get help.
Animal hoarding is a national problem. The reaction of most people to these situations is anger. How can we not be angry about a situation so out of hand that people and animals live in filth and animals are left to die? How could they be so heartless and care so little for their companion animals? Why didn’t they reach out for help?
Animal hoarding more often than not results in abuse, suffering, and death of animals. It is criminal. It does not, however, happen in a vacuum. Someone knows what is going on, even if they don’t do anything to intervene.
What is Animal Hoarding?
The term “animal hoarding” and its criteria were established by the Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC), an interdisciplinary group of researchers who collaborated from 1997 to 2006:
- More than the typical number of companion animals
- Inability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, shelter, and veterinary care, with this neglect often resulting in starvation, illness, and death
- Denial of the inability to provide this minimum care and the impact of that failure on the animals, the household, and human occupants of the dwelling
Animal hoarding is sometimes called “Noah syndrome” or referred to as “collecting animals,” which is an prior, broader term. Owning a large number of animals is not always “hoarding” or “collecting.”
Who Hoards Animals?
Researchers state that people who hoard animals often view themselves as a savior or rescuer acting out of love for the animals, even as the animals starve, suffer illnesses, and sometimes die in their care. Cases involving hundreds of companion animals are common, according to a National Link Coalition overview. Animals accumulate both actively (such as by soliciting from the public) and passively (as the animals breed).
A managed scenario may descend into hoarding upon an emotional, physical, or financial catalyst such as the death of a loved one, an illness or injury to the caretaker, or the loss of a job. Animals may accumulate passively, such as because sterilization is unaffordable, or actively, because the person can’t bear the thought of a dog being killed at the shelter or kittens alone on the street. The situation continues when owners do not seek help and hide the problem due to self-judgment and to avoid of the judgment of others. This disconnect from reality can deepen when the owners resist acknowledging the suffering of the animals that they intended to save.
Initially, the person may be able to care for the animals, but the situation spirals out of control due to challenges in the person’s life, such as an illness, loss of a loved one, financial struggles, and/or increased animals due to births or acquisition. HARC described these archetypes:
- The Overwhelmed Caretaker’s loss of ability to care for animals may be compounded when litters are born due to inaccessibility of sterilization due to factors such as cost, lack of transportation, or not having the time or mental energy to coordinate the surgery. Self-judgment and external judgment tend to be hurdles for asking for help, but when help is offered, the Overwhelmed Caretaker is more likely to accept assistance.
- The Rescuer-Hoarder seeks out and acquires animals, such as to save them from being killed in a pound or from having a poor quality of life in a puppy mill. Rescuer-Hoarders may represent themselves as agents of a rescue organization, may have legitimate nonprofit credentials, and may solicit donations from the public, according to a 2005 study. A belief that “only they can adequately care for their animals” fuels resistance to seeking new homes or allowing assistance in caretaking.
Hoarding is a manifestation of a mental distortion “characterized by an exaggerated need to control, an exaggerated sense of responsibility, and intense emotional attachments,” according to a Psychiatric Times examination. Animal hoarding is included in the DSM-5, the psychiatric diagnosis guide, as a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder. A 2002 HARC study found that in 26% of cases the person who hoarded “was eventually institutionalized or placed under some type of protected care.” Hoarding of animals is strongly correlated with the hoarding of objects, though animal hoarding is a much more significant problem due to the wide-spectrum effects on the animals, the human occupants, the living conditions, neighbors, and the larger community.
Most people who hoard animals are female, according to HARC researchers, and most are 55 or older and single, widowed, or divorced, though over half of the sample lived with other individuals. “Despite evidence supporting this stereotype of a low-income, older, single female; hoarders may also be male, any age, and may come from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, including the health professions,” according to a 2005 HARC study which urges awareness that many individuals do not fit the hoarder stereotype. Cats have consistently been found to be the predominant species as well as the largest number of animals hoarded, followed by dogs, and less frequently, by birds, “exotic” species, and “farm animals” including horses, cattle, and rabbits.
Impacts on Animals, Humans, Communities
Animals removed from hoarding situations exhibit health problems due to malnourishment, lack of veterinary care, overcrowding, and unsanitary conditions. Wikipedia states that “Basic animal waste management is absent in virtually all animal-hoarding situations, and animals are filthy and often infected with parasites as a result.” The competition for insufficient food creates aggressive behavior and sometimes cannibalism. These problems are not immediately solved upon rescue. Euthanasia of some of the animals is often necessary, and even animals with treatable conditions are often killed due to the cost of treatment or to the difficulty in securing foster care or adoptive homes for many animals at once.
Where animals are neglected, humans are also. This neglect includes the self-care of the owner of the animals, and of children, elders, and others in the household. Houses where animals were kept lacked basic functionality (such as to shower, sleep in a bed, or prepare food) in over half of cases examined by HARC in a 2002 study and were condemned as unfit for human habitation in 11% of cases. “Conditions include dangerous levels of ammonia, fecal matter, urine, accumulated trash, and vermin,” according to the National Link Coalition. The “lack of appropriate sanitation in 70 to more than 90% of animal hoarding cases, together with the large number of animals involved, increases the likelihood of zoonotic diseases for the occupants and the community,” according to Psychiatric Times.
Economic cost is also significant, and is rarely recovered through restitution orders, according to a 2005 analysis. The Animal Legal Defense Fund states that a single hoarding case “can easily bankrupt a local humane society or shelter, and severely strain volunteer resources.” In Alabama, it may be more likely that a municipal shelter puts to death many treatable animals (e.g., dogs with mange) and avoids prosecutorial expense by filing few or no charges. Of course, this is no savings when the same owner is found to be hoarding again months later. Nonprofit rescue groups may take on as many dogs as possible, with corresponding financial expenses as well as impact on capacity to pull dogs from kill facilities and to intake from the community.
Impacts on the larger community are also significant. We have heard from several neighbors who for years or even decades suffered dog bites or fear of attack by unsocialized dogs, incessant barking, concern about repeated pregnancies and animals hit by cars, and the pain of trying to help the animals without ever feeling able to sufficiently do so. (These neighbors did report; in the absence of possession bans, hoarding continued.) Then there are the mental-emotional effects on those who remove animals, cost of the investigation (such as documentation of each animal’s condition by a veterinarian), treatment of illness and injury, sheltering expenses, kennel space, and resources and costs borne by nonprofit rescue groups which take in animals. Post-intervention impacts on the animal and the community can be minimized when charges are filed under § 13A-11-241 rather than § 13A-11-14.
Legal Considerations
Some hoarding cases result in criminal prosecution. Many do not. As is explained by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), “animal hoarding cases are difficult to prosecute [because] most states have no legal definition for animal hoarding, courts already assign relatively low priority to animal abuse and neglect cases in general, and many people are unfamiliar with the severity of abuse in hoarding situations.”
The neglect of animals in hoarding situations clearly meets the criteria for cruelty. In Alabama cases in which animals are seized (rather than surrendered by the owner), it is essential to charge as § 13A-11-241 Cruelty to Dog or Cat since only that statute establishes a custody procedure for the animals. (If animals are surrendered, § 13A-11-14 and its felony component, § 13A-11-14.1, may be utilized.) Each affected animal is considered a separate ‘act’ and thus a separate cruelty charge. The state of each animal must be documented (preferably by a veterinarian) to support each charge, though, and in the absence of this documentation, fewer charges will be applied, sometimes only one misdemeanor or felony count, according to a 2005 study by HARC researchers. In some cases, “judges openly discouraged multiple charges against hoarders because they felt they ‘clogged’ the system.” The study concluded that “lenient treatment of hoarders in exchange for immediate custody of the animals appeared to contribute to recidivism.”
The ALDF, also, stresses the importance of prosecuting hoarding cases: “There is often a mental health component in an animal hoarding case, causing some communities to divert the hoarder from the criminal justice systems; however the criminal justice system can be a tool for addressing these very issues,” ALDF states. “Courts can — and should — require convicted animal hoarders to undergo mental health evaluations, and treatment if necessary. This can address the root of the issue, dramatically reducing recidivism rates.”
Due to a near-100% likelihood of recidivism, ALDF recommends that “convicted hoarders should be barred from owning, possessing, or having any direct contact with animals.” Alternatively, successful outcomes have resulted from removing puppies or kittens and allowing the person to keep a small number of (sterilized) adults only. The 2005 HARC study reports that after animals are removed from the home, many begin to collect again, citing a Humane Society of the United States report’s finding that “Without a long-term plan and support for the hoarder, the available evidence indicates that recidivism approaches 100%.” Suggested interventions include psychological counseling, required sterilization of any retained animals, assistance in improving living conditions, and frequent surprise visits from law enforcement officers over the following years. HARC recommends that these interventions be negotiated at the time of plea-bargaining. Some states mandate psychological counseling, according to Wikipedia.
One approach that is not yet available statewide in Alabama is a hoarding-specific statute that allows for a single hoarding charge. Regarding Hawaii’s law, Wikipedia states that this approach “decrease[s] the cumbersome burden multiple charges can place on courts, adding that “prosecutors will also be able to bring separate charges of animal cruelty for individual animals whose injuries are easiest to document.” The City of Mobile has a hoarding ordinance which we are aware of being used in 2025, however its low penalty (less than a single misdemeanor cruelty charge) is questionable.
While Alabama does not limit the number of companion animals per household or property, many municipalities do. Blountsville § 3-4(e), for example, sets a maximum of six adult dogs, cats, or exotic animals per residence.
Animal Hoarding Task Forces & Mental Health Approaches
A Hoarding Task Force can help address potential hoarding situations using the expertise of social workers, mental health professionals, law enforcement professionals, and members of the animal sheltering and rescue community. This approach is akin to a shift in some law enforcement agencies from treating every law enforcement encounter with the pubic as a criminal matter and instead using mental health liaisons to resolve situations and prevent recurrence without incarceration.
The Alabama Department of Human Resources is one such agency which can assist, said Kathryn Shoupe, director of communications, in this statement provided on Apr. 9, 2025:
The Alabama Department of Human Resources receives and responds to calls from the public when there is concern for a person's wellbeing that appears to have declined such as their home environment, physical appearance or displays of mental or physical capacity issues. In some cases, this could relate to animal hoarding.
Depending upon the severity of the situation, DHR would work in close collaboration with other community agencies and partners to establish the necessary services or resources for the safety of the client. This may include but is not limited to animal control, public health, and building safety and/or code enforcement.
(The Alabama Department of Public Health does not respond to hoarding situations, according to Arrol Sheehan in public information, via email on Apr. 4, 2025.)