State-Led Eviction For Animal Hoarding

[TripleB]

Every so often I read about people "evicted" from their homes for animal hoarding. Or the home remains theirs but the animals get seized. Growing up when I'd hear there stories, I'd like "wow that person is crazy. Good thing the government went in there to help them."

Now as a Libertarian I think, "why should the government be allowed to do this? Who decides how many animals is too much? 300 cats in one house is 'too much' but what about 299? 298? 100? Is 10 cats OK but 11 cats is not OK? Does an otherwise unemployable bureaucrat get to decide?"

In a lot of cases these houses smell really bad and cause distress to their neighbors so from that standpoint I can see the need for intervention to protect the neighbors from harm.

Then again, if no neighbors were being harmed, then it's unlikely the police would find out about the situation. Any thoughts on this issue?

Edit: I'm referring to cases where the home is owned by the occupier. Obviously if someone else owns the house they would have terms in the lease against this because it's clearly damaging to the house and no tenant should have the right to damage the landlord's house.

[KevinW]

I think this kind of authority gets justified as part of the local government's charge to control communicable diseases, and nuisance odors or eyesores that affect public spaces.

Also some people feel that animals have some inalienable natural rights in the same way that people do. We would probably agree that if a kidnapper held a group of people against their will in a confined space with inadequate sanitation and health care, ending that situation through force would be justified. If you believe that animals have the same right to not be kidnapped then you would probably feel that shutting down animal hoarders is also an appropriate use of force.

[MediumTex]

Following the confiscation of the property and animals by the state, the animals with no economic value (which includes most pets) are normally killed by the state or its delegee after a short holding period.

I wonder what the animals think about that.  I'll bet they would rather take their chances with the crazy cat lady.

[Pointedstick]

Following the confiscation of the property and animals by the state, the animals with no economic value (which includes most pets) are normally killed by the state or its delegee after a short holding period.

I wonder what the animals think about that.  I'll bet they would rather take their chances with the crazy cat lady.

I was visiting relatives recently and was told a heartbreaking story of a local woman who lived alone with her many cats, and was old and sort of losing her mind. The local government forced her out of her house and into a retirement home and killed her cats. She rapidly went downhill at the retirement home.

Using force against the non-violent--even for ostensibly compassionate designs--rarely has pretty consequences, in my experience.

[Tyler]

I can understand government intervention in situations of clear animal cruelty. Like where the cats are dying of malnutrition or someone is "raising" (more like strategically neglecting) pitbulls for fighting purposes. 

Cases of neighborhood "blight" are a bit of a gray area, where one person's property value sinkhole is another persons normal lifestyle. I'd personally tread lightly there.

But when people seize animals basically because someone decides its not "normal" to have that many, I find that ridiculous.

[dualstow]

Remember a few years ago when 60 Minutes or a similar show did an exposé of that animal "rescue" show on Animal Planet? On the surface, it looked like the team (which may have been associated with the A.S.P.C.A.; I can't remember) was doing good work, rescuing neglected animals from indifferent pet owners.

A closer look revealed a woman who lost her dogs "because their ribs were visible" when in fact they were greyhound-like animals in perfect heath. It was normal for that breed to show a little rib. It also came out that the seize-team was being compensated according to the number of raids they conducted.

Meanwhile, the woman lost her livelihood.
----
I guess the devil is in the details. I'm all for keeping an eye on animal hoarders and making sure they are treating their pets well, and not keeping species that are against the law to keep. I'm not to excited about killing any animals seized.

[smurff]

I think this kind of authority gets justified as part of the local government's charge to control communicable diseases, and nuisance odors or eyesores that affect public spaces.

Also some people feel that animals have some inalienable natural rights in the same way that people do. We would probably agree that if a kidnapper held a group of people against their will in a confined space with inadequate sanitation and health care, ending that situation through force would be justified. If you believe that animals have the same right to not be kidnapped then you would probably feel that shutting down animal hoarders is also an appropriate use of force.

The authorities seem to tread too lightly in some jurisdictions.  It's bad for the suffering animals, but it's bad for the people living in fear of hoarders' "pets":

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/us/po ... ml?hp&_r=0