Animal welfare crisis – a perfect storm that will lead to an increase in animal hoarding?

Social media and animal welfare

Having previously used social media to keep in contact with friends and up to date with areas of interests, I have only recently become aware of the world of animal welfare pages, especially the pages and groups focused on equine welfare.  Initially I followed a few to keep abreast with what was happening in the UK, and further afield.  Quickly I became saddened by the relentless stream of truly dreadful stories about equine abuse, neglect, suffering, damage and death.  I’ve had a volunteer equine role for over 20 years, one that is well underpinned by my mental health training and experience, however the level of harm and deliberate pain inflicted on animals by some individuals was shocking.

I then became concerned about the use of social media, when combined with the general public’s kindness and concern about the welfare of animals, being used to generate scams or hoaxes, one of which I describe in an earlier blog https://bronwizview.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/animal-welfare-hoaxing-the-role-of-social-media-and-the-impacts-on-those-involved/

Animal welfare crisis

All of the horse welfare agencies, both large and small, are clear that there is a welfare crisis in the UK.  Lee Hackett, Director of Equine Policy with the British Horse Society recently wrote about the current situation of many horses being ‘rescued’ to face further neglect.  His view is that for some horses, euthanasia is preferable to being passed from pillar to post and experiencing chronic, long term suffering. His article can be found here; http://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/press-centre/news/jan-to-jun-2014/rescue-me.

It is not just horses; there is a massive dog, cat and other smaller companion animal problem too.  The RSPCA states that its centres are now at crisis point and has just published report, “Tackling the cat crisis” which can be found here; http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232734779317&mode=prd. It highlights the need for neutering and the concerns about multi-cat households where the welfare of both animals and people is compromised. Usefully the report describes the importance of multi agency working, especially involving housing providers.

A perfect storm

There is a perfect storm brewing where we are likely to see an unprecedented increase in animal hoarding cases involving all companion animals, including horses and ponies.  All the equine welfare organisations are full.  A small horse rescue centre told me recently that they get calls every day from agencies, such as councils, who phone round to all the rescue organisations, trying to persuade them to take in animals. There are thousands of horses deemed to be at risk of becoming welfare cases.

Rather than horses being euthanised or going for slaughter people are encouraged, especially on social media sites, to take animals on to avoid them being ‘killed’. These pages often use language such as ‘baby’, ‘poor’ and ‘cute’  when describing an animal promoting an emotional response in readers, some of whom will feel compelled to help, perhaps against their better judgement.   It is likely that this will result in individuals taking on animals they cannot afford or for which they have no room. Very probably these recue animals will come with complex physical and behavioural issues and may be unmanageable.

Don’t get me wrong, I would, rather that horses (and other animals in need) had a good home and lived happily in to a ripe old age than go for slaughter or be euthanised.  Some will be lucky, will find excellent homes and be fine, but a number will not. Many of the animals who become welfare cases will have been poorly bred resulting in conformation problems making them unusable for riding. They come with damaging worm burdens, other parasites or the effects of ragwort poisoning or consumed toxins. They can require significant dental work, farriery, veterinary attention and investigations.  They may need specialist feed and medication.  None of this is cheap. They may still need to be euthanised at the end of treatment that has been expensive for the humans and stressful for the animal.

Animal hoarding is often joked about and brings to mind images of the local cat lady.  In reality animal hoarding is no joke for the people involved, their dependants, the animals hoarded, their neighbours and communities.  Animal hoarding often starts by well meaning individuals rescuing and caring for animals which then gets out of hand and the animals end up in a worse state than before they were ‘rescued’, as described in my recent article in Mental Health Practice found here; http://rcnpublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.7748/mhp2014.03.17.6.35.e868     

Before any of us takes on an animal as a ‘rescue’ we need to think beyond our current situation, what happens if we or a member of our family gets sick. How will we manage if we lose some or all of our income.  If we take in an equine will our current grazing / stabling always be available.  It may be possible to manage now but companion animals will live for some years and horses live for a long time, will we still be able to manage day to day when we, and they, are twenty plus years older.

Taking on any animal is a responsibility, taking on a horse or pony is a long term commitment and a rescue one comes with possible physical and psychological problems which require significant financial, time and emotional resources. Taking on an animal to make things ‘better’ for it may make life worse in the long run for it, and for the individual ‘rescuing’ it.

Advertisements

Animal Welfare Hoaxing – the role of social media and the impacts on those involved

During the Christmas period I have had more time to scan various forms of social media for some of the things that interest me, including animal welfare. Over the past week, I have watched as a completely bizarre situation has played out which has demonstrated, not only the power of social media, but the risks of this power, especially when it is combined with emotive subjects such as animals being at risk of harm and ill treatment.

Being interestedi in animals and their impact on human mental health, including animal hoarding and rescuing I am concerned that a new abuse of both animals and people concerned for their welfare is developing through the form of social media.

One social media animal welfare hoax

Before Christmas a new page suddenly appeared on Facebook for a group purporting to be involved in reuniting lost equines and their owners. The focus quickly changed to animal welfare concerns and the group’s administrators began to describe a ‘rescue’ that was being planned in a county some two and a half hours drive away from them and that a ‘team’ was being sent out that night. A rescue of a number of horses had been previously undertaken in the identified locality the year before, during flooding, and was widely reported in the media.

The Facebook group administrators continued to describe the ‘rescue’, undertaken by their ‘team’, throughout the night via their page, including concerns that the river in that area was rising following recent and continuing heavy rain. They reported that they had removed four horses, two others had been euthanized on site by ‘their vets’ and another young horse had been hit by a car and had also been euthanized due to the injuries it sustained.

At least one Facebook user went out to assist with the ‘rescue’ but was unable to find anyone within the area.  They went alone. It was early morning in winter. It was dark and there were no lights, no other vehicles and no noise to indicate activity in the area. They could view the location from above via a bypass. They repeatedly messaged the ‘rescuers’ to ask where they were but received no information. Another group of horses, tethered on a river bank, very close to the alleged ongoing ‘rescue’ location were also reported as being in danger on the same Facebook group page. The individual looking to assist the ‘rescue’ spent some time with the tethered animals, alone, to ensure their safety.  Eventually the individual left the scene as a notice had been posted in the Facebook group stating their primary concern was the loose horses, and that ‘everything was in hand’.

As the ‘rescue’ was being reported, the Facebook page lit up with concerned comments, some coming from the USA, and the administrators asked for donations to be given via a PayPal account for the care, including vets’ bills, of the animals that they stated were now in their possession. A few people, some of them local to the situation, started asking questions including requests for the police incident number to be posted in case anyone had any information about the RTA in which the young horse was fatally injured. People asked for photos of the animals ‘rescued’ and for details of how they were doing and what veterinary treatment they were receiving.  The administrators set up a post for concerned followers to provide names for the saved horses.

A good number of people gave accurate and helpful advice regarding the law under the Animal Welfare Act (2006), the setting up and running a charity and how to liaise with other welfare agencies.  There were offers of expertise and equipment, including night vision goggles by a local animal activists.

All offers of help were turned down with statements by the administrators that they knew what they were doing and that the ‘public’ where to keep away. The administrators were able to be vague about details as they had not been at the site, rather their ‘team’ had been. They stated that they were awaiting details from them and could not answer questions until they had received information themselves.   Those asking for information were viewed as hostile and accusatory by the two administrators of the group and they immediately took any very genuine and reasonable questions as allegations that they had been ‘stealing’.  

The group suddenly changed from an open to a closed group and people were removed for asking challenging questions. Another horse welfare Facebook community voiced their concerns about people donating money to the ‘rescuing’ group and were swiftly vilified with derogatory comments and language.  

Donations were suddenly retuned to donors by the administrators, but some just immediately re donated again, believing that what was being reported was real and altruistic.

Then came a statement that, due to the level of questioning by individuals on the group page the four surviving ‘rescued’ horses had been passed on to another horse charity. It was hinted that they had gone to a well known and reputable equine charity, whose welfare department, when I checked with them, confirmed that they knew nothing about this situation and had certainly not taken in any horses from these individuals.

Several locals visited and gave daily reports of the tethered horses on the river bank that were in less than ideal conditions but in good health, continued to be safe from the river and were being checked, fed and watered daily by their owner. The RSPCA were also aware of these animals.

In another post, several days later, it was suddenly announced that the two administrators would be driving to the area to ‘have a look’ at the horses on the river bank themselves. When they eventually set off (it was now dark) their horse box broke down ‘somewhere on the motorway’, the RAC ‘could not attend until the next day’ and then the driver’s phone ‘died’. There were immediate offers of help, one from a woman who was prepared to go out and look for the horse box located ‘somewhere on the motorway’ on a late and dark winter evening. Others offered to drive them to the location, some hours away.

Eventually, with some skilled probing by some group members, one of the administrators began to admit that the ‘rescue’ had never taken place and that it was all a hoax. They claimed that the other administrator had not told them the truth and they, like the others following the group, had been misled and that they knew nothing. They eventually closed the Facebook group down and opened another similarly named page. Some followers continued to support them as they felt that the administrator was an injured, well meaning but naive innocent party.

How might animal welfare social media hoaxes fit with some forms of animal rescuing / hoarding?

Having written several papers on animal hoarding for professional journals (accepted for and pending publication), these recent events have made me reflect on whether the use of social media is now an inevitable extension or platform for the animal ‘rescuing’ behaviours that have been identified within animal hoarding. It struck me that the events of the hoax described above had dynamics and behaviours that were similar if not identical to what occurs in certain types of animal hoarding situations where hoarders claim to be rescuing animals. 

The different types of animal hoarders / rescuers

Generally, with animal hoarding, one tends to think of single, socially isolated, usually female individuals who keep large numbers of smaller domestic animals such as cats or dogs in appalling conditions. However the limited work that has been undertaken on animal hoarding, mostly in America, has identified three main suggested types of animal hoarding behaviour (see page 20 http://vet.tufts.edu/hoarding/pubs/AngellReport.pdf).

Whilst the first type of ‘Overwhelmed Carer’ animal hoarder may go some way to fitting the stereotype understood by the general public there are two other main types identified by (Patronek, Loar and Nathanson 2006) –  ‘rescuer hoarders’ and ‘exploiter hoarders’. Individuals fitting in to these two groups are more difficult to identify as hoarders and they are very likely to generate support from others.

Rescuer hoarders tend to actively seek out more animals to take in, stating that they are working to avoid any animals dying or being killed. Exploitative hoarders are likely to be persuasive, engaging and believable but lacking in either any empathy for animals and humans or remorse for the impact of their actions. They can be very skilled in persuading supporters and others that they are in fact the victims of the situation and are the ones being persecuted. Animal hoarders/ rescuers can also be very adept in giving plausible explanations that can fool even agencies and animal welfare organisations.

Supporters of animal hoarders /rescuers are often passionate and will fiercely defend what they perceive as the good work being done by well-meaning individuals. Any questioning the motives of the ‘rescuers’, no matter how gently or neutrally will be seen as outrageous affronts.

In all types of animal hoarding / rescuing repeat offending almost always occurs. When agencies become involved and intervene hoarders tend to move on and will very quickly start the same behaviours, often within days or weeks.

The abuse of animals, of people, of trust

Basically these second two categories of animal hoarding behaviour are clouded by a smoke screen of animal ‘rescuing’ but are actually driven by individuals seeking to meet their own needs using calculating and callous methods. Their actions may be driven to gain power (over animals and people), notoriety, public recognition, monetary or material gain, other more personally driven reasons or perhaps a combination of these.

There is a recognised correlation between animal abuse and human abuse and this is very often the case in animal hoarding cases. In the recent Facebook case described above, I would suggest that people were abused. Followers’ trust was abused by deceit. There was the request for donations (monetary and material) to support animals that did not exist. Concerned and very caring individuals put themselves at risk as they went out in bad weather conditions, alone and in the dark in to the countryside and on to flooding land. Others possibly went to look for a broken down lorry ‘somewhere’ on a motorway, again in the dark.

Conclusion

Social media is an amazing arena that allows people to swiftly gain information and support, make connections, develop networks, speak to others and help a huge variety of causes. However it can also be used to dupe large numbers of very well meaning people in to giving time, energy, support, resources and money. Emotive subjects, such as animal welfare are prime pickings for a certain type of individual. These individuals would have traditionally operated with perhaps a smaller group of supporters over a larger timeframe in a particular geographical area. Social media allows these types of exploitation to occur very rapidly and to draw in large numbers of people believing that an ‘emergency’ is unfolding and that they must do their best to help.

Sadly, many of the individuals involved, when they realise that they have been taken in blame themselves for allowing it to happen and are probably much less likely to offer help in the future. There is a well recognised animal welfare crisis that is ongoing in the UK, and elsewhere in the world, and unfortunately that crisis is likely to be made worse by a small number of individuals who prey upon animals and people and who can now use social media as a swift, effective and anonymous method to do this.

I hope that this blog can be seen by some of the people taken in by the hoax described here, that they will be able to realise that this type of behaviour can fool many people and that is, unfortunately, not rare. I hope that those kind and generous people can continue to offer their time, energy, help, knowledge, funding and support to people who genuinely work for the good of animals, and of other humans.  

 

 Animal Welfare Act 2006 HMSO

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents (Last accessed February 1 2013).

 

Patronek G, Loar L, Nathanson J (Eds) (2006) Animal Hoarding: structuring interdisciplinary responses to help people, animals and communities at risk. http://vet.tufts.edu/hoarding/pubs/AngellReport.pdf (Last accessed Janaury 1 2014).

 

 

 

The Place of Animals in Mental Health Recovery

The following is an article published in the Care Programme Approach Association journal, The Approach. It is reproduced here, with kind permission from the CPAA, in a slightly shorter form.

The Place of Animals in Recovery

Half of UK households own a pet (Reynolds, 2006), therefore many people experiencing mental health problems will have companion animals and their relationships with these are often significant and important.  Owners will each have a different level of attachment to their animals and where several are owned it is likely that the individual will have a different connection with each one (Peacock, Chur-Hanson and Winefield, 2012).  However, mental health services very rarely consider the significance of animals in people’s lives, their role in recovery or how they impact on risks.  Understanding an individual’s relationship and attachment to animals could be a significant element in recovery that is being missed.  Whilst animal assisted therapy for mental health, as well as other health problems, has been fairly well researched, examination of the significance of actual animal ownership and effect on mental health has had little consideration (Walsh, 2009; Peacock, Chur-Hanson and Winefield, 2012).

Owning a companion animal can allow us to have an important relationship, one that is safe, trusting and uncomplicated.  It brings responsibility and a role, as well as an opportunity to focus on another living being.   Animals provide unconditional love and affection which, for those who are isolated and stigmatised due to mental health problems, can be highly important and affirming and can also provide physical contact and reassurance.  For many, companion animals are considered to be a member of the family, may be included in celebrations and given presents (Walsh, 2009).

Mental health workers are required to collate a great deal of information about service users, starting at the first assessment, but individuals’ relationships with their animals are rarely asked about, or considered to be important, therefore they are unlikely to feature in care plans or reviews.  If workers do not understand, or even acknowledge a service user’s animals in assessments, in conversations and in care plans there can be a significant gap in holistic care.  Peacock, Chur-Hanson and Winefield (2012) identified that any psychological assessment should include information about attachment and relationships with animals.  At the very least talking about a person’s animals is a good method of building rapport and engagement, often helping someone to start to talk about them self.

Recovery based care is an important and recognised approach but when services do not consider a person’s animals and their significance, care cannot be truly individualised and recovery focused.  Animals can be helpful in building resilience to mental illness and can provide a routine that supports important coping strategies.  If we are to use a truly holistic approach which considers every aspect of peoples’ lives, their animals should feature.  For many, both those who are experiencing mental health problems, and for those who are not, animals can give meaning to their lives.  Therefore care plans need to take in to account the part played by any animals in service users’ lives.

For many, animals can reduce risks, as they can be protective factors for those who self harm or are suicidal.  The thought of leaving their animal behind has been shown to prevent individuals from harming themselves, can give them a focus (Walsh, 2009) and animals can be a comfort which provide solace and affection.  In these situations a companion animal can offer hope and help a service user develop a belief that they can cope with life and Walsh (2009) identified that animals can support individuals through difficult events and transitions.

For many, animals provide a purpose and a structure to the day by giving them a sense of worth and control over part of their life (Slatter, Lloyd and Kind, 2012).  Those with poor motivation may find that they will get up and out for their animals when they would not do so for themselves.  Routines based around animals can support the development of coping strategies for difficult times.

Where animals provide livelihoods there will be different attachments to them by their owners but these are no less important than those with companion animals.  Farmed animals are often given names (Brown, 2006) and the impact on mental wellbeing for farmers and others when they lose their stock can be profound as demonstrated in the last foot and mouth epidemic, the ongoing tuberculosis infections of cattle and the recent losses of stock in the severe weather of spring 2013.

For some individuals the owning of animals can increase risk.  As circumstances change, due to factors such as illness and reduced finances, owners can become overwhelmed with the care that their animals require.  Physical risks in the form of trips and falls can be a problem with those who are physically infirm; however owners with dogs and who walk them have been shown to be physically fitter (Smith, 2012).  Owning an animal can expose previously unidentified issues.  When they first own an animal the nurturing that it requires can be overwhelming for some individuals due to their own experiences of poor nurturing or neglect by their families.

For some, the thought of being separated from their animals will lead them to delay treatment (Peacock, Chur-Hanson and Winefield, 2012) or prevent them from moving to appropriate accommodation (Morley and Fook, 2005).  This has been the case for older people needing a care setting and also for homeless individuals who will not take up accommodation if their animal is unable to go with them (Slatter, Lloyd and King, 2012).  Concern about one’s home, including pets, has been identified as a factor in absconding from hospital (City University, 2003).

For many owners the loss or death of a companion animal will cause a grief reaction that is often experienced similarly to the death of a loved person (Brown, 2006; Walsh, 2009).  The level of grief experienced will be related to the level of attachment to the animal (Donohue, 2005).  This is normal especially as companion animals are generally considered to be family by owners.  What often causes problems are the responses from others, including health workers, who give trite reassurances such as pointing out that it was only an animal or that another can be obtained.  Responses such as these further compound the individual’s grief and sense of loneliness (Brown, 2006).  Sometimes the death of an animal has a wider significance when it is a last link to a human that they have lost.

Women in abusive relationships have delayed or not left the situation due to either, not being able to take their animals or their children’s animals with them, or due to threats of harm to the animals from the abuser (Krienert ,et al 2012; Allen, Gallagher and Jones, 2006).  The abuse of animals has been identified as a possible indicator for domestic and child abuse (Blewett, 2008) with agencies in some USA states routinely sharing information where animal abuse has been identified (Patronek and HARC, 2001).

The responsibility, time and cost of caring for a companion animal will increase risks for some individuals but will reduce them for others.  Caring for an animal can become overwhelming and can be costly which may result in a service user ‘going without’ to provide for their animal.  For some individuals caring for animals runs out of control, in worst cases producing animal hoarding situations (Williams, B. 2014).  Here numbers of animals are kept in conditions that not only do not meet their needs, but significant cruelty, suffering and death are caused.  The impact on humans in animals hoarding situations is also enormous as children and vulnerable adults can be living in the household.  Animal hoarding situations are often driven by changes in circumstances including physical illness, but it is very likely that there will be comorbid mental health problems (Patronek, Loar and Nathanson, 2006).  Animal hoarding is more common than many think but is often ignored by agencies as it is seen as a ‘lifestyle choice’ (Reinisch, 2008).

It is important to consider if there is an impact on carers when those they support have animals.  Carers can experience an increased burden by having to take responsibility for animals when a service user is unable to do so.  For some this may be something that they are willing and able to do, but services should not just assume that a carer is able to meet the welfare needs of someone else’s animals, including the financial implications.  The role of the care coordinator and good care planning is essential to identify what is the best for a service user, carers and the animals should there be a crisis or if circumstances change.

In the current times of economic austerity some may feel that taking the time to understand and support service users’ relationships with their animals is inappropriate, but if we are to work in a truly recovery based way we need to understand what is important to service users.  Those with mental health problems are stigmatised enough without services ignoring or dismissing an element of their lives, which may be immensely important and helpful to them.

Workers, services and others may believe that those they work with do not have the ability or resources to care for a pet.  As long as the animals’ welfare needs are sufficiently met as required by law (Animal Welfare Act, 2006, see box 1), there is a positive impact for the service user and the responsibility is manageable for them, why would there be a problem?  We can work with service users to ensure they chose appropriate animals for them and their circumstances.  We can care plan with crisis and contingency plans including details of how their animals can help or increase symptoms and risk when they are becoming unwell.  We can also support the drawing up of clear plans for where animals should go should the service user become unwell.

Box     1

An animal’s needs shall be taken to  include;

(a)     its need for a suitable environment,

(b)     its need for a suitable diet,

(c)     its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,

(d)     any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and

(e)     its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

(The Animal Welfare Act, 2006, section 9)

Mental health workers are already pressured for time and may consider discussing a service user’s animals as a waste of time or unnecessary, however this then misses an opportunity for aiding engagement, for understanding what is really important for the individual and their life. It also can mean that certain risks and protective factors are missed.  Many mental health workers own animals that are hugely important to them, so why should our service users be treated any differently?  For many their relationships to animals are important, life affirming and profound. Recovery approaches cannot be authentic if workers and services chose to ignore this significant aspect of service users’ lives.

In summary, there is a significant part of people’s lives that is often missed by services and if we are to really deliver supportive, meaningful and individualised care we need to consider the role of animals in peoples’ lives.

 References

Allen, M., Gallagher, B. & Jones, B. (2006) Domestic Violence and the Abuse of Pets: Researching the Link and Its Implications in Ireland. Practice. 18,3, 167-181.

Animal Welfare Act (2006) HMSO

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents (Last accessed: April 22 2013).

Blewett, J. (2008) The link between animal cruelty and child protection. Community Care. 1745, 26-27.

Brown, K. (2006) Pastoral concern in relation to psychological stress caused by the death of a companion animal. Mental Health, Religion and Culture. 9, 5, 411-422.

City University Department of Mental Health and Learning Disability (2003) Anti-Absconding self-training package for ward staff. http://www.citypsych.com/index.html

(Last accessed: April 15 2013).

Donohue, D. (2005) Pet Loss: Implications for Social Work Practice. Social Work. 50,2, 187-190.

Krienert, J., Walsh, J. & Mathews, K. et al (2012)  Examining the Nexus Between Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse in a National Sample of Service Providers. Violence and Victims. 27, 2, 280-295.

Morley, C. & Fook, J. (2005) The importance of pet loss and some implications for services. Mortality. 10, 2, 127 -143.

Patronek, G. & HARC (2001) The Problem of Animal Hoarding. Municipal Lawyer. 19, 6-9.

Patronek, G., Loar, L. & Nathanson, J. (Eds) (2006) Animal Hoarding: structuring interdisciplinary responses to help people, animals and communities at risk. http://vet.tufts.edu/hoarding/pubs/AngellReport.pdf (Last accessed February 15 2013).

Peacock, J., Chur-Hansen, A. & Winefield, H. (2012)  Mental Health Implications of Human Attachment to Companion Animals. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 68, 3, 292-303.

Reinisch, A. (2008) Understanding the Human Aspects of Animal Hoarding. The Canadian Veterinary Journal. 49, 12, 1211–1214.

Reynolds, A. (2006) The therapeutic potential of companion animals. Nursing and Residential Care. 8, 11, 504 – 507.

Slatter, J., Lloyd, C. & King, R. (2012) Homelessness and companion animals: more than just a pet. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 75, 8, 377-383.

Smith, B. (2012) The ‘pet effect’. Health related aspects of companion animal ownership. Australian Family Physician. 41,6, 439-442.

Walsh, F.  (2009) Human-Animal Bonds 1: The Relational Significance of Companion Animals. Family Process. 48,4, 462-480.

Williams, B. (2014) Animal Hoarding: devastating, complex and everyone’s concern. Mental Health Practice. 17, 6, 35-39