First Strike and You’re Out Law for Animal Abusers

Cases of animal hoarding are extremely sad, unfortunately common and affect the welfare of thousands of animals. Individuals keep far more animals than they can provide care for, and yet don’t see a problem.

Even in cases where animals are removed, penalties for such behavior are not sufficient and provide no incentive to stop future offenses.

According to a study from Tufts University regarding the Long-Term Outcomes in Animal Hoarding Cases, 56 cases were examined where researchers found that there was little follow up on cases, along with a lack of compliance with court ordered psychological evaluations and counseling.

Additionally, the study found that the approaches used to prosecute offenders were ineffective, and that light punishments in exchange for fast custody of the animals involved lead to repeat offenses.

The obvious conclusion is that more effective laws are needed, and follow through with hoarders, or “collectors,” will speed up the resolution of these cases and reduce present and future animal suffering.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) is proposing the First Strike and You’re Out law, which would mean those who have been convicted of animal neglect or cruelty would be prevented from having contact with animals for up to a lifetime in the future.

Separates offenders from potential new victims.
Will help to reduce future crimes against animals and save limited community resources.
Those who have been convicted of animal neglect or cruelty have demonstrated, through their actions, their irresponsibility with animals. This justifies having a set period of time where they are not allowed contact with them.
Addresses high recidivism rates (near 100%) for certain offenders (i.e. animal hoarders).

You can support this law by contacting your legislators and asking them to support the First Strike and You’re Out law.

creative commons

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

CR C.

1:41AM PDT on Aug 7, 2009

Some owners love all their best even when they don't realise they have to many and can't afford it. I think something has to be passed to make people that don't realise they have to many that they can't look after will and are committing a criminal act to wake them up. Not to mention they will lose all their beloved pets.

send a green star

Janina I.

2:44AM PDT on Jun 2, 2009

This issue is not as simple as black and white. There are people who have lots of animals, mostly strays they have rescued, because they truly care about them and don't want them sent to shelters where there's a high probability they will be put down. I think each case should be reviewed individually. If there is evidence of neglect, abuse and profit making from breeding animals, only then there's a case for prosecution. Owners need to be responsible to keep their animals from over breeding also. I think it would be unfair to those who are truly trying to save animals from being prosecuted simply because they own too many.

Kathy B.

11:28PM PDT on May 29, 2009

I agree with allot of the comments posted here. There are alot of people who truly love animals, as I do, and if I could afford to I would have many more cats than the two that I already adopted. If the person has one pet or 50 pets, as long as they are being taken care of and shots and food and a clean environment, then they should not be prosecuted. The people that are abusive should not be allowed to ever have a pet again!!

Jerilyn C.

12:36PM PDT on May 28, 2009

I agree that each case of "animal hoarding" needs to be looked at individually. A little old lady who loves animals and takes too many in and then ends up not being able to care for them should not be lumped together with the ones who hoard these animals hoping to make money on them. Each case of "hoarding" needs to be looked into to see what the original situation was.
Jerilyn Capaccione

Ermengarde T.

10:18PM PDT on May 27, 2009

I am mostly in favor of such a law, except there must be provisions for say, second-degree and such offenses.

I can't imagine if some little old lady were sick and got behind on caring for the strays she's trying to help, or anybody else that means well. It's the ones that try to profit from animal hoarding/neglect that I would like to see punished severely. I could only imagine if I somehow couldn't care for my animals and got charged with something before I could make other arrangements. Such things have to be considered.

More importantly, those who outright abuse animals and profit from that abuse are less than human IMO, and need to be dealt with accordingly. That goes for child abusers, sex offenders and the like as well. Anybody so low as to harm these helpless classes of people don't ever change, and the sooner we lock them up for life, the less of this garbage we'll be dealing with.

Every single day there's at least one report of another child or woman or gay person who is raped, beaten, murdered, abducted, etc. It's touched my family more than once and in one case it means that person was murdered. My sister also lost a former mate to murder, a random attack as was that on my ex-husband who died trying to defend a female with a gun pointed at her.

Only permanent lockup is going to get the sickos where they belong, for good. There should be no second chances.

"The meaning of life is to live a life of meaning"

mary s.

4:40PM PDT on May 27, 2009

Animals just like people have the right to feel safe. I know some hoarders have OCD. But in order for them to be able to adopt an animals they should be able to provide good quality care for themselves and the animals. They may need some support to care for the animals before the animal is fully realeased into their care. As for Animal Abusers (including but not limited to puppy mills) I agree that the 1st Strike Your out rule should apply. I also think that hoarders who can't provide an animal with a good home should also be charged under that rule if they have an animal with them. Often times animal abusers don't just hurt animals- they hurt people too. We can stop the abuse from continuing if we catch the abuser and keep him or her in custody. We may not just protect the animals, we may also end up protecting other people in our society- that is why I aggree with the first strike you are out rule.

Past Member .

2:25PM PDT on May 25, 2009

Well put Eve A. There are true abusers, overpopulated puppy mills, that have no interest in any humanity toward animals whatsoever. It is these who must suffer the consequences of "First Strike and You're an Out Law for Animal Abusers".

Much care must be taken to prosecute the True Abusers to the fullest extent of the law, which is too lenient as it stands.

Nan B.

2:19PM PDT on May 25, 2009

I can see a first strike in play… But the bill needs to be set in the right fashion!
First of all I believe what a “normal” individual should be thinking when it comes to even a single critter is first and foremost, am I taking proper care of the one I have before taking on another. Secondly weather or not they have done right by the first one, not thinking correctly or at all, they just start adding on to the family….. So enhance care go’s right out the window. But who knows right from the start it may have started by, AWE LOOK HOW CUTE? Sorry pal cute is expensive.
Our Critters can’t live on being cute. There is a lot of care, time proper nutrition, exercise, and attention that go’s into just one, let alone a few or even more. Now it would look like to me that if this be the case that a person would need so many, well I guess that would make you (a Codependent and or a ranting Control Freak, and if making money like a puppy mill, GREED no doubt fits in there ). So you need to stick with the stuffed critters, so no harm can be done.
Also the big one is People that can not take care of there kids also should not have Critters either.

Eve A.

6:53AM PDT on May 25, 2009

At first glance the First Strike idea seems a good one, but on the other hand I believe that some situations require closer checking than it may first appear. Each case should be dealt with seperately as Marylin K says. I think the guideline would be if the animals are suffering in any way, be it physically or mentally. A good vet would be able to judge this and I do believe it should be up to a qualified person to make the final decision not someone who may have an axe to grind be it financial or political!!

Babette B.

4:15AM PDT on May 25, 2009

Define hoarding! Moreover consider that our society believes that animals collected by the aspca or humane organizations are somehow "helped" which is not the case -- they are almost always killed at the shelter. To give shelter used to mean to protect, in the case of animals it is altogether different. Hoarders are simply people with good intentions many of whom are doing the best they can to do good. Humane societies get the bulk of support from animal lovers but they rarely provide care for life. And it should, it simply should be about providing care for life.
There are other and far more grievous kinds of animal abuse involving cruelty and malice. Let's concentrate on getting the laws in order in these cases. For many of these individuals go on to hurt people... Let's concentrate on real animal abuse, puppy mills, people who raise dogs for food in this country, etc.