Hog-Dogfighting

Hog-dogfighting is a form of staged animal fighting in the same category as dogfighting and cockfighting, which are both illegal. Hog-dogfighting originates from hog hunting, a legal endeavor in which hunters use dogs to find, chase, and catch feral hogs. Feral hogs are considered a nuisance in rural areas and hunting without a permit is common in many states. Dog breeds common to hog-dogging are American pit bull terriers and Catahoulas. In a hog-dog event, a hog with its board teeth removed is placed in a pen. Dogs are placed in the pen with the hog and encouraged to maul it. If the pig will not come out of the pen corner, a cattle prod is used on it. The hog will scream in agony as the dogs are allowed to viciously attack. Admission fees and bets are placed on the event. The owner of the fastest attacking dog is rewarded with cash prizes. A single pig may have to endure multiple events. Hog-dogging is legal in most states.

Working With Law Enforcement

A veterinarian may have cockfighting birds or dogs from dogfighting events brought to the clinic or shelter for examination. They may be asked to come to the scene to conduct examinations and to evaluate overall conditions. The veterinarian can be instrumental in discussing animal abuse statutes and other statute offenses involving these animals. Veterinarians are invaluable to law enforcement to identify paraphernalia or other equipment associated with dog- and cockfighting.

Animal abuse and a multitude of other offenses are committed at cockfighting and dogfighting events (Sakach & Parascandola, 2016), including

■ Cockfighting-specific offenses

■ State anticruelty statutes

■ Gambling

■ Racketeering

■ Unreported income tax or tax evasion

■ Conspiracy

■ Concealed weapons

■ Disorderly conduct

■ Animal Welfare Act or Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (federal)

■ Narcotics and controlled substances

■ Illegal sales of alcoholic beverages

■ Contributing to the delinquency of a minor

Animal Hoarding Laws

Animal Neglect and Cruelty with No Federal Strategy

Each state has its own laws that prohibit cruelty by owners and require a minimum level of care. Although the minimum level of care varies among states, they have several elements in common:

■ The animal must be able to maintain a normal body weight by receiving sufficient quantities of food and clean drinkable water.

■ The animal must be able to maintain a normal body temperature and be protected from getting wet by having adequate housing or shelter.

■ The animal must have a clean, hygienic living space adequate to prevent soiling with feces and urine or trash.

■ There is some degree of effort to relieve suffering, secondary to injury or illness, possibly by access to veterinary care.

Neighbors, delivery persons, and caregivers or other professionals including law enforcement are most likely to identify an animal neglect and cruelty by a hoarder based on violations of these living and care requirements. The only two states in the country with state-level animal hoarding laws are Illinois and Hawaii.

If the person involved is a competent adult, it may not be a violation for a competent adult to live in those same unclean conditions. A competent adult human may choose to live in squalid conditions as long as the characteristics of their housing do not violate housing codes or public safety regulations. In this scenario, the authorities tasked with investigating and potentially bringing charges against a hoarder might decide not to commit the resources necessary to pursue the case if their limited resources are needed for other law enforcement activities.

In contrast, if there is a minor or an incompetent adult in the home, the living conditions might attract the attention of child or adult protective services. The immediate priority of these protective service professionals is to address the needs of the person. Their responses might not include removing and providing care to the animals if that removal would be stressful to the person.

It is not always clear who has legal authority to investigate a hoarder, to take possession of the animals, and to leverage the threat to bring charges against the hoarder. The local animal warden, if there is one, sheriff’s or police department, and state police have the authority to enforce local and state laws within their jurisdictions. Although police have the authority to enforce the law and intervene to investigate a hoarder and remove animals, they are more likely to prioritize use of their limited resources to protect the public by preventing and investigating burglaries, assaults, and other violent crimes. Some states allow specifically trained representatives from humane organizations to enforce animal cruelty statutes by explicitly granting enforcement power. All stakeholders should beware of humane organization representatives who attempt to intervene without having been granted this law enforcement authority. All parties exercising enforcement power must adhere to the rules of criminal procedure and evidence to assure that their efforts yield admissible evidence.

Types of Animal Hoarders

Unlike animal fighting, which is a criminal, commercial enterprise by persons generally involved in other criminal activities, people become hoarders for many different reasons. As a result, there is not one specific interventional approach that is successful with all types of hoarders. The Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC) divided hoarders into three groups, based on the motivations and circumstances of the hoarder, which include the overwhelmed caregiver, rescuer hoarder, and exploiter hoarder. These designations are descriptive of how the person became a hoarder and their level of receptivity or resistance to different types of intervention. Interventions can range from assistance with the care of and rehoming of animals for individuals who accept that there is a problem to threats of or actual legal prosecution as a last resort for individuals who aggressively reject all legal authority.

Overwhelmed Caregiver

The overwhelmed caregiver (Patronek et al., 2006) is personally devoted to the care of their animals, which they consider to be family members, but has experienced a decline in the ability or capacity to provide suitable care. This decline might be precipitated by one or more factors. One factor is an economic change, such as the loss of income, medical bills and other expenses, or loss of a spouse or other persons providing assistance. Another factor could be a reduction in the physical ability to maintain the standard of care, such as might occur due to personal illness, decline with age, or loss of assistance by a spouse or other person.

Although they may not initially acknowledge the severity of the problem, they have some degree of awareness that the level of animal care has declined and has probably made unsuccessful efforts to solve the problem before becoming completely overwhelmed. They are concerned about the animals, to whom they are very attached, and bases their self-esteem on their caregiver role for the animals, which they gradually passively acquired rather than having actively sought to rescue or acquire. While they may tend to be an isolated personality with possible Axis I psychological disorders, they are not purposely secretive and are not driven by a strong desire to control the situation.

They are the most likely of the hoarder types to be receptive to entry by an intervener and to be respectful of and compliant with authoritative recommendations. However, they will find it very emotionally difficult to be separated from their animals; they are the most likely to qualify for assistance or intervention by social services.

Rescuer Hoarder

The rescuer hoarder (Patronek et al., 2006) is a socially integrated person who has a personal mission or compulsion to prevent the euthanasia of animals by actively acquiring progressively increasing numbers of animals from a network of enablers. Because they are distrustful of authority and animal shelters, they see themselves as the only one capable of saving the animal. They find it difficult to refuse additional animals and keeps them permanently, although they may initially engage in rescues followed by adoption. As the animal number balloons, they gradually become unable to provide adequate care but stubbornly continue to believe that they are their only hope, based on a deep-seated fear that the animals would be euthanized elsewhere.

They are unlikely to acknowledge that there is a problem and are compulsively driven to collect more animals. Based on this mind-set, they will not be receptive to entry by an intervener, and it will be difficult to get them to comply with authoritative recommendations. They will be secretive and will fight to avoid losing control of their animals; they are unlikely to qualify for assistance or intervention by social services. The threat of prosecution may be necessary, and might not be enough in some cases.

Exploiter Hoarder

The exploiter hoarder (Patronek et al., 2006) is a highly manipulative, narcissistic, charming, and articulate person who actively collects animals for the sole purpose of serving their own needs. Unlike the other two groups, they are not motivated by empathy for animals, or people, and do not respond to animals’ suffering or the harm they are doing to them.

Because they arrogantly believe that they are the ultimate expert, they seek to exert unchallenged control and are likely to completely deny that there is a problem and to reject any suggestion that there is a care issue. Based on this mind-set, they will employ manipulative and deceptive strategies including creating articulate excuses, lies, and plans to deceive and evade authorities including law enforcement, such as temporarily moving animals. They lack any sense of remorse and it is pointless to appeal to their nonexistent conscience regarding the animal issues. This is the most difficult type of hoarder to work with due to this manipulative nature, and prosecution may be necessary.

This individual will not be receptive to entry by an intervener, and it will be difficult to get them to comply with authoritative recommendations. They will be secretive and will fight to avoid losing control of their animals; they are unlikely to qualify for assistance or intervention by social services.