Source: https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-animal-hoarding
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:58:57+00:00

Document:
This article provides a basic overview of animal hoarding, its psychological underpinnings, and existing laws that are used to combat animal hoarding. The article suggests that current laws do not adequately prevent animal hoarding or protect animals, and that hoarding-specific legislation should be enacted. Hoarding-specific legislation should create a separate offense of animal hoarding, require psychological evaluation of animal hoarders, and prohibit future ownership of animals for convicted hoarders.
I. What is Animal Hoarding?
Animal hoarding is a form of animal abuse affecting thousands of animals each year. Hoarded animals are kept in horrid conditions: deprived of socialization, denied proper care and nutrition, often living covered in their own waste, and suffering from disease. Hoarded animals are often kept in various states of decay--with live animals living among (and sometimes feeding on) the remains of dead animals.
Although it is “one of the greatest causes of animal suffering in the United States, and hoarders are responsible for causing more injuries, suffering, and deaths to animals than the intentionally cruel acts of violent animal abusers,” [ 1 ] animal hoarding is a widely misunderstood phenomenon. Media portrayals of hoarding perpetuate public ignorance by focusing on emotional themes rather than presenting a factual picture of animal hoarding. [ 2 ] Lack of knowledge about hoarding and a failure to understand the severity of the behavior may prevent authorities from effectively combating this form of animal cruelty.
This article provides a basic overview of animal hoarding, its psychological underpinnings, and existing laws that are used to combat animal hoarding. The article suggests that current laws do not adequately prevent animal hoarding or protect animals, and that hoarding-specific legislation should be enacted. Hoarding-specific legislation should create a separate offense of animal hoarding, require psychological evaluation of animal hoarders, and prohibit future ownership of animals for convicted hoarders. This first section defines animal hoarding and explains what animals are hoarded. The second section describes the harmful effects hoarding has on animals and their owners. The third section explains who animal hoarders are. The fourth section discusses the psychological underpinnings that cause people to hoard animals. The fifth section discusses current laws that are used to prosecute animal hoarding and stresses the importance of enacting hoarding-specific legislation. The sixth section discuses laws that are related to animal cruelty and that can be useful in preventing and prosecuting hoarding. The seventh section describes how animal hoarders are prosecuted, problems with current prosecution standards, and the high rate of recidivism among hoarders. The eigth section discusses outcomes in animal hoarding cases and the penalties imposed on hoarders. The article concludes that increasing awareness and understanding of animal hoarding is necessary to prevent hoarding and protect animals and that states should enact hoarding-specific legislation in order to adequately address the issue.
B. What Animals Are Hoarded?
Animal hoarding is harmful to the welfare of both humans and animals. Authorities often describe the conditions hoarded animals are kept in as deplorable: “containing animal carcasses, standing water, refuse, and animal and human waste, and conditions inside the dwellings are ‘knee-deep in garbage and feces.’” [ 11 ] The animals clearly suffer from the severe neglect hoarders impose on them. The denial of basic needs (food, water, sanitation, and veterinary care) causes many of the animals to slowly deteriorate to the point of death. Even after being rescued, many of the animals are beyond repair and must be euthanized to avoid needless suffering.
IV. Why do people hoard animals?
In every state, animal hoarders can be prosecuted under animal cruelty laws that require owners of companion animals to provide proper care for their animals. [ 57 ] Because failure to provide proper care for animals is an act of omission or neglect rather than an affirmative act, animal hoarding is considered a misdemeanor offense in most states. [ 58 ] In a few states neglect is considered a felony offense. (For more on state animal cruelty laws see State Cruelty Laws Topic Area .) Penalties for animal cruelty offenses can include fines, animal forfeiture, and jail time. [ 59 ] Some states, such as California, require courts to order psychological counseling for convicted animal abusers. [ 60 ] Other states allow courts to order psychological counseling at the court’s discretion. [ 61 ] Prosecutors may also be able to request bans on future pet ownership or limits on the number of animals a convicted hoarder may keep in the future. [ 62 ] As will be discussed in Section VI below, these bans and limitations are only effective when coupled with proper monitoring to ensure compliance.
Although animal hoarders can be prosecuted under these animal cruelty laws, many scholars maintain that basic animal cruelty laws are not the most efficient way to prosecute hoarding. As Stephan Otto, director of legislative affairs for ALDF explains: “Only a handful of states allow felony charges for the worst kinds of animal neglect . . . They also need stronger laws that take into account when multiple numbers of animals were in involved in a case.” [ 63 ] Additionally, animal cruelty statutes tend to be vague and fail to precisely define what it means to provide adequate care and shelter for animals. [ 64 ] Although challenges to anti-cruelty laws as void for vagueness have generally been unsuccessful, [ 65 ] greater specificity in defining neglect, proper care, and animal hoarding, would help prosecutors pursuing charges against animal hoarders.
Although Illinois’ legal definition of a “companion animal hoarder” is a step in the direction of providing legislation that is specifically designed to combat animal hoarding, the definition does not provide any extra tools to a prosecutor. Animal hoarding itself is not prohibited by the statute; the prosecutor must still show a violation of Section 3 of the Humane Care for Animals Act. The Companion Animal Hoarding Bill merely defines hoarding and mandates psychological counseling for animal hoarders who violate Section 3.
(c) Fails to correct the conditions under which the dogs or cats are living, where conditions injurious to the dogs’, cats’, or owner’s health and well-being result from the person’s failure to provide necessary sustenance.
This law specifically criminalizes hoarding, while depriving an animal of necessary sustenance can also constitute a separate offense of animal cruelty. The hoarding law differs from ordinances that limit the number of pets a person can have because it only prohibits keeping more than fifteen dogs and cats if the owner fails to provide necessary care for the animals and that failure causes injury to the animals or the owner.
An important aspect of this law is that prosecutors may be able to charge hoarders with one count of animal hoarding that covers all of the animals. When hoarding is prosecuted under state animal cruelty laws, prosecutors must charge hoarders with multiple counts of animal cruelty­—one for each animal on the premises. By creating the offense of “hoarding” Hawaii’s law seems to allow prosecutors to charge hoarders with one count of animal hoarding that covers every animal the person has hoarded, easing the prosecution’s burden of providing documentation of each individual animal’s injury. This will also decrease the cumbersome burden multiple charges can place on courts. Prosecutors will also be able to bring separate charges of animal cruelty for individual animals whose injuries are easiest to document.
Hawaii ’s hoarding statute is not perfect, however. It does not mandate psychological counseling for convicted hoarders or restrict future animal ownership. [ 72 ] Additionally, the statute does not explicitly state whether other sections of Hawaii’s Penal Code that apply in animal cruelty and abuse cases, such as §711-1109.1, which allows authorities to impound animals suffering from abuse or neglect, or §711-1110.5, which provides for forfeiture of the animals prior to the disposition of criminal charges, apply in hoarding cases. [ 73 ] Despite these shortcomings, Hawaii’s law remains the first law in the nation to specifically prohibit hoarding and should be a valuable tool for prosecutors in Hawaii.
a. A person is guilty of hoarding animals if the person keeps or has possession of a number of animals in a quantity such that the person fails or is unable to provide minimum care [ 76 ] for all of the animals and, due to the failure or inability to provide minimum care, at least some of the animal experience death, bodily injury or other serious adverse health consequences. Animal hoarding is a crime of the fourth degree.
b. The number of animals kept or in the possession of a person shall not be determinative of whether there has been a violation of this section, but may be considered as a factor in determining whether animals have been provided minimum care.
Unlike Hawaii’s law, New Jersey’s proposed legislation does not provide any baseline number that would constitute hoarding if combined with failing to provide minimum care and causing injury to the animals. Accordingly, under the proposed legislation, a person could be guilty of hoarding even with a relatively small number of animals if that person injures those animals by failing to provide minimum care to them. Not only would the absence of a baseline number allow hoarding charges in cases with a relatively small number of animals, it may also garner less criticism from people who are wary of any limits on the number of animals a person may possess.
Like Hawaii’s law, New Jersey’s bill would reduce the burden on both prosecutors and courts by providing that a separate offense is not brought for each animal involved. Also like Hawaii’s law, the bill fails to mandate psychological care or evaluations or bans on owning or keeping animals and regular inspections of the premises.
On April 4, 2008, Representative Rebekah Warren introduced House Bill No. 5946, which would amend Michigan’s penal code to include provisions specific to animal hoarding. [ 78 ] The bill was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary where it awaits further action. Like Hawaii’s law and New Jersey’s pending legislation, Michigan’s bill creates a separate offense of animal hoarding.
(i) The animals’ living conditions negatively impact their health and well-being.
By providing that a “person’s affection for or humanitarian purpose in acquiring the animals is not a defense” [ 84 ] to an offense of animal hoarding, the bill could alleviate problems of judges being sympathetic towards hoarders and being hesitant to convict them because it demonstrates the legislature’s intent that all hoarders be prosecuted.
(ii) The term does not include purebred animal breeding facilities or facilities for animals related to sanctioned endurance races unless the facilities meet the elements of subsection 5(A)(l).
It is unclear why these bills have not been successfully made into law. Legislators may be wary of hoarding legislation because the public may view hoarding legislation as infringing on their rights to pet ownership. Moreover, legislators may believe the popular myths that hoarding is not a severe form of animal abuse, but merely an act of having too much love for animals. If legislators do not understand the seriousness of animal hoarding, they are unlikely to pass potentially unpopular laws. Additionally, legislators may simply believe that hoarding legislation is unnecessary because hoarding can be prosecuted under existing animal cruelty laws. Section C 3 below further discusses criticisms of hoarding legislation.
The generally accepted definition of animal hoarding includes both a self-neglect element and a psychological element (i.e., “fail[ure] to acknowledge the deteriorating conditions of the animals and . . . the household environment [and] failure to recognize the negative effect of the collection on [the hoarder’s] own health and well-being” [ 96 ] ), but legislatures and scholars disagree as to whether these components should be included in the legal definition of animal hoarding. The Illinois Act, for example, includes both a psychological and a self-neglect element by providing that to be considered a hoarder a person must fail to acknowledge the “deleterious impact [the conditions] have on [both] the companion animals’ and owner’s health and well-being.” [ 97 ] The Hawaii Act, on the other hand, does not require any psychological element, such as a failure to acknowledge the conditions, and does not require that the owner’s health be injured by the conditions. Instead the Act states “where conditions injurious to the dogs’, cats’ or owner’s health and well-being result,” [ 98 ] indicating that the behavior must be harmful to either the owner or the animals for it to be considered hoarding. Like Hawaii’s Act, New Jersey’s proposed legislation mentions neither a psychological element nor harm to the owner. Meanwhile, Michigan, New Mexico, and Vermont’s proposed legislation include psychological elements (“inability to recognize or understand the nature of, or has a reckless disregard for . . .”) but do not require any detriment to the owner’s health. Notably, the bill originally proposed to Montana’s Senate included language identical to the language in the Illinois’ Act, imposing a psychological element as a well as a self-neglect element, but this language was struck before the bill was passed by the Senate and transmitted to the House.
Including psychological and self-neglect elements in legislation is consistent with the generally accepted definition of hoarding and helps justify provisions for mandatory psychological evaluation and care in hoarding cases, but these provisions may impede the preventing and punishing of animal hoarding. [ 99 ] Requiring self-neglect could provide a defense to hoarders who live separately from their animals. [ 100 ] For example, Marilyn Barletta, the California woman who kept nearly 200 neglected cats in her second-home, would not qualify as a hoarder under a definition requiring harm to the owner. Psychological elements, such as requiring “disregard” for the conditions or an “inability to understand” are also problematic because they introduce a mental element that may be difficult to prove, and allow a person’s awareness and acceptance of the terrible conditions to serve as a defense to the charge.
Although animal hoarding is necessarily an offense that requires more than one animal, it is unclear whether there is any bright-line numerical rule distinguishing animal hoarders from other animal owners who abuse or neglect their animals. The Illinois statute (like HARC’s definition of hoarding) refers to hoarders as having a “large” number of animals, while the Hawaii statute presently defines hoarders as having fifteen or more animals (and as enacted defined hoarders as having twenty or more animals). Michigan’s proposed legislation defines hoarders as having ten or more animals, and New Jersey’s proposed legislation states that the number of animals a person has is irrelevant for determining whether hoarding occurs. These various numbers (and lack of numbers) demonstrate that there is little consensus about the number of animals that must be affected for hoarding to occur. These divergent definitions demonstrate a lack of consensus about whether a set numerical standard should be used to define hoarding, or whether a less precise standard should be imposed.
A bright-line rule may be attractive because of its simplicity and easy application. [ 101 ] However, such a rule may be criticized for “creating a legal black hole, in which obviously criminal behavior will evade prosecution, so long as it is perpetrated on a limited number of animals.” [ 102 ] For example, a Hawaiian person keeping twelve dogs in a filthy and crowded basement without access to proper food or water cannot be prosecuted as an animal hoarder simply because they are three dogs under the state’s statutory limit of fifteen animals.
These critics fail to consider that the intent of hoarding legislations is to distinguish animal hoarding from other types of animal cruelty. Supporters of hoarding legislation maintain that hoarding should be distinguished from other forms of animal cruelty in order to ensure that judges, juries, and prosecutors understand the seriousness of the crime and its psychological underpinnings. Creating a distinct crime of “hoarding” allows legislatures to require psychological evaluation of hoarders and ensure that hoarding is recognized as severe abuse (instead of being viewed as merely animal loving that goes too far).
Nonetheless, the criticisms of hoarding legislation may explain the slow progress in states enacting hoarding-specific laws. Despite this, many states already have related companion laws that can be useful in preventing and prosecuting hoarding.
Providing the defendant with sufficient notice and an opportunity for a hearing before any security is posted.
Requiring the authority to secure a court order for [sic] to humanely dispose of the animal at the end of the time for which expenses are covered by the security.
In states that do not recognize animal hoarding as an independent crime, municipalities may choose to pass community ordinances that outlaw animal hoarding, provide provisions for forfeiture of animals, and mandate psychological or psychiatric evaluation and treatment for animal hoarders. The Animal Law Coalition has a Model Hoarding Ordinance (available under “Resources” at www.animallawcoalition.com ) that can be adapted by various communities. These laws should be distinguished from pet limitation ordinances that are “wildly unpopular, difficult to enforce, and likely to be opposed by a broad coalition of pet fanciers, breeders, rescue groups, and animal protection organizations.” [ 118 ] While hoarding ordinances prohibit keeping numerous animals in conditions that are harmful to the animals’ health, pet limitation ordinances simply prohibit keeping more than a certain number of animals regardless of the level of care provided to the animals.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) successfully used this law to gain possession of more than 350 dogs that were being hoarded in squalid conditions in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Woodley . [ 128 ] Pursuant to the Civil Remedy for Protection of Animals statute, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld “an injunction forfeiting all rights in the animals possessed by [the hoarders] and the removal of the animals from [the hoarder’s] control,” giving ALDF control of the abused animals. ALDF provided veterinary care for the abused animals and placed them in foster homes where they were provided with proper care. Following the North Carolina Supreme Court’s denial of the defendants’ appeal in October 2007, the decision became permanent, allowing ALDF to adopt out the animals for the remainder of the animals’ lives.
Prosecuting animal hoarding cases is “complex, time consuming, and costly.” [ 134 ] Dr. Gary Patronek explains that “[p]rosecutors don’t really have the tools they need to fully go after these cases . . . and they often don’t have the support of other agencies that they need. The cases don’t get widespread attention, so many are not dealt with or monitored well. That means the perpetrators keep getting away with their behavior and animals keep suffering.” [ 135 ] Laws criminalizing hoarding as well as forfeiture and bond laws can make prosecution easier and less costly, but there are still other difficulties in prosecuting hoarders.
Additionally, officials may opt to forgo charges or enter into lenient plea-bargains in exchange for custody of the animals because they fear that the animals will languish in shelters while prosecution is pending. [ 139 ] These attempts to “strike a balance between helping both the hoarder and the animals involved” are generally ineffective because of high recidivism rates among hoarders. [ 140 ] See Recidivism Section below.
These inconsistencies may arise because some prosecutors and judges discourage multiple charges, believing that they “clog” the system. [ 145 ] The difficulty of proving each charge also accounts for these inconsistencies. [ 146 ] In order to bring one charge of cruelty for each animal, prosecutors and animal agencies must provide proof of cruelty to each animal, matching each animal with its count number. [ 147 ] Adversely, charging the hoarder with only one count reduces the burdens on the system, the prosecutors, and the animal agencies, but undermines the severity of the charges. Laws (like Hawaii’s) creating a separate offense of animal hoarding may solve this problem by allowing one count of hoarding to be brought in every case that encompasses the hoarding aspect of the charge rather than focusing on each individual count of cruelty.
A detailed discussion of the results of HARC’s research, Long-Term Outcomes in Animal Hoarding Cases , was published by the Animal Law Review at Lewis and Clark Law School in 2005.
Animal hoarding is a severe form of animal abuse that deserves special legislative attention. Misperceptions about animal hoarding prevent adequate prevention of hoarding, protection of animals, and prosecution of offenders. Enacting hoarding-specific legislation, similar to Hawaii’s hoarding law, would help ensure better prevention, protection, and prosecution. Even in the absence of hoarding-specific legislation, efforts should be made to ensure that hoarders are prosecuted and prevented from repeating the offense.
 Lisa Avery, From Helping to Hoarding to Hurting: When the Acts of “Good Samaritans” Become Felony Animal Cruelty, 39 Val. U, L. Rev . 815, 817 (2005).
 See Arnold Arluke et al., Press Reports of Animal Hoarding, 10 Soc’y & Animals 113 (discussing inaccuracies in media portrayal of animal hoarding).
 Gary J. Patronek, The Problem of Animal Hoarding, Municipal Lawyer 6 (2001) [hereinafter The Problem ].
 Avery, supra note 1, at 821.
 Susan E.Davis, Prosecuting Animal Hoarders is Like Herding Cats, California Lawyer 26, 28 (2002).
 Avery, supra note 1, at 822.
 The Problem, supra note 3, at 1.
 Colin Berry et al., Long-Term Outcomes in Animal Hoarding Cases, 11 Animal L. 167, 175 (2005) .
 Sandy Miller, Objects of Their Affection — The Hidden World of Hoarders , Best Friends , January/February 2008, at 22.
 Avery, supra note 1, at 826 (internal citation omitted).
 Davis, supra note 6, at 28.
 Berry, supra note 9, at 175.
 Gary J. Patronek, Hoarding of Animals: An Under-Recognized Public Health Problem in a Difficult-to-Study Population, Public Health Reports , January/February 1999, at 84 [hereinafter Under-Recognized ].
 Davis, supra note 6, at 26.
 Avery, supra note 1, at 842.
 Joshua Marquis, The Kittles Case and its Aftermath, 2 Animal L . 197 (1996).
 Miller, supra note 10, at 22.
 Arluke et al., supra note 2, at 125.
 Avery, supra note 1, at 840.
 Miller, supra note 10, at 21.
 Paul Rioux, Profile Fit in Pet Curelty Case – Hoarders have void in lives, experts say, The Times-Picayune , Mar. 21, 2004.
 See, e.g., Randy Frost, People Who Hoard Animals, 17 Psychiatric Times (2000), available at http://www.searchmedica.com/resource.html?rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychiatrictimes.com%2Fdisplay%2Farticle%2F10168%2F54031&q=People+who+Hoard+Animals&c=ps&ss=psychTimesLink&p=Convera&fr=true&ds=0&srid=1 (collecting explanatory models for animal hoarding).
 Avery, supra note 1, at 835.
 Frost, supra note 37, at 1.
 Avery, supra note 1, at 838.
 Frost, supra note 37, at 2.
 Avery, supra note 1, at 837.
 Davis, supra note 6, at 29.
 Avery, supra note 1, at 836.
 Arluke et al., supra note 2, at 124.
 Berry et al ., supra note 9, at 177-79.
 Avery, supra note 1, at 857.
 The Problem , supra note 3, at 3.
 Davis , supra note 6, at 67; Pen C § 597(g).
 Davis, supra note 6, at 67.
 Miller, supra note 10, at 57.
 See, e.g., Florida v. Mary Elizabeth Wilson, 464 So.2d 667 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985) (upholding the constitutionality of Florida’s statutory prohibition against depriving an animal of sufficient food, water, air, and exercise in a case where a defendant charged with keeping seventy-seven poodles caged in the back of a van with inadequate food, water, and air argued that the statute was void for vagueness); People v. Speegle, 53 Cal. App. 4th 1405 (Cal. 1997) (upholding the constitutionality of California’s statutory prohibition against “depriving an animal of ‘necessary’ sustenance, drink or shelter, subjecting an animal to ‘needless suffering’; or failing to provide an animal with ‘proper’ food or drink” in a case where a defendant charged with keeping two hundred poodles, three horses, and one cat in squalid conditions without adequate food, care, or shelter argued that the statute was void for vagueness).
 510 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 70/2.10 (West 2004) .
 Avery, supra note 1, at 843.
 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1109.6 (2009) . Originally the statute prohibited possessing more than twenty dogs that the owner failed to properly care and provide for, but the legislature amended this to fifteen in 2009 .
 Laura Allen, Hawaii Legislature Passes Bill to Make Hoarding a Crime, But is it Strong Enough, Animal Law Coalition, http://www.animallawcoalition.com/animal-hoarding/article/459 .
 A.B. 2981, 213th Leg. (N.J. 2008), available at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A3000/2981_I1.PDF .
 S. 1989, 213th Leg. (N.J. 2008), available at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/S2000/1989_I1.PDF .
 The bill defines “minimum care” as “care sufficient to preserve the health and well-being of an animal and, except for emergencies or circumstances beyond the control of the person responsible for the care of the animal, provide the following: (1) food or sufficient quantity and quality to allow for normal growth or maintenance of body weight; (2) open or adequate access to drinkable water of an appropriate temperature in sufficient quantity to satisfy the needs of the animal; (3) access to an enclosed nonhazardous structure sufficient to protect the animal from the weather that has adequate bedding to protect against cold and dampness; (4) adequate protection for extreme or excessive sunlight and from overexposure to the sun, heath, and other weather conditions; (5) veterinary care deemed necessary by a reasonably prudent per person to prevent or relieve injury, neglect, or disease, or distress from these conditions; and (6) reasonable access to a clean and adequate exercise area.” Id.
 H.R. 5946, 94th Leg. (Mich. 2008), available at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/pdf/2008-HIB-5946.pdf .
 S. 221, 61st Leg., (Mont. 2009), available at http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billpdf/SB0221.pdf .
 Montana State Legislature, Detailed Bill Description, http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&P_BILL_NO=221&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ =.
 The original bill presented to the Senate included a fourth element identical to the psychological and self-neglect element in Illinois’s statue, but this provision was struck before the bill passed in the Senate and was transmitted to the House.
 New Mexico Legislature, http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_session.aspx?Chamber=H&LegType=B&LegNo=444&year=02 (last visited Jan. 2010).
 H.R. 444, 45th Leg., 2d Sess. (N.M. 2002), available at http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/02%20Regular/bills/house/HB0444.pdf .
 Vermont Legislature, http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=S%2E0205&Session=2002 . (last visited Jan. 22, 2010).
 The Problem, supra note 3.
 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1109.6 (2009) .
 Jason E. Schwalm, Animal Curelty by Another Name: the Redundancy of Animal Hoarding Laws, The Selected Works of Jason E. Schwalm, http://works.bepress.com/jason_schwalm/2 at 13 .
 The Horror of Animal Hoarding, Animal Legal Defense Fund website, http://www.aldf.org/article.php?id=280 (last visited Jan. 22, 2010).
 Bond Laws to Cover Cost of Care after a Seizure, The Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium, http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/hoarding/bond.htm (last visited Jan. 22, 2010) [hereinafter HARC Bond Laws].
 HARC Bond Laws, supra note 111.
 See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-9-202.5 . ALDF’s Model Animal Protection Laws include similar provisions for Pre-Conviction Cost of Care bonds and can be viewed at http://ww.aldf.org/article.php?id=262 . The bond laws of Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington can be viewed at HARC’s website, http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/hoarding/Bondlaws.htm .
 The Problem, supra note 3, at 3.
 Colo. Rev. Stat. 35-80-102 et seq. A complete list of the regulations is found in the Colorado Code of Regulations 8 CCR 1201-11, available at http://www.sos.state.co/us/CCR/welcome.do .
 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19A-1 et seq .
 Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Woodley, 640 S.E.2d 777, 779 (N.C. App. Ct. 2007 ) (quoting Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Robeson County, 595 S.E.2d 773, 776-77 (N.C. App. Ct. 2004).
 N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A-3 .
 640 S.E.2d 777 (North Carolina Court of Appeals 2007).
 Animal Legal Defense Fund Sues to Rescue 100+ Dogs from Real-Life House of Horrors in Raleigh, Animal Legal Defense Fund, October 31, 2007, http://www.aldf.org/article.php?id=468 (last visited Jan. 22, 2010).
 WRAL.com, Animal Rights Group Settles with Owner of Seized Dogs, Dec. 12 2007, http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2162889/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2010).
 Appeals Court Uphold Landmark Animal Cruelty Decision , Animal Legal Defense Fund, February8th 2007, http://www.aldf.org/article.php?id=371 (last visited Jan. 22, 2010).
 ALDF v. Woodley , Mar. 31, 2005, Animal Legal Defense Fund, http://www.aldf.org/article.php?id=284 (last visited Jan. 22, 2010).
 Berry et al ., supra note 9, at 171.
 Marquis, supra note 21, at 197.
 Berry et al ., supra note 9, at 179.
 Avery, supra note 1, at 834.
 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Animal Hoarders: Behavior, Consequence, and Appropriate Official Response , at 9 (internal citation omitted), http://www.helpinganimals.com/pdfs/hoardingsingle72.pdf (last visited Jan. 22, 2010) [hereinafter PETA Report].
 PETA Report, supra note 150, at 9.
 Berry et al ., supra note 9, at 185.
 PETA Report, supra note 150, at 10.

References: §711
 §711
 v. 
 § 597
 v. 
 v. 
 § 711
 § 711
 § 19
 v. 
 v. 
 § 19
 v.