laws only two states have laws regarding the hoarding of animals: illinois and hawaii. passed in 2001, the illinois humane care for animals act was amended to include a definition a companion animal hoarder and mandated psychological counseling for animal hoarders who violate section 3. a person convicted of violating section 3 of the act (which requires the provision of food and water, adequate shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care, and humane care and treatment) is guilty of a misdemeanor with a second or subsequent violation raising the offense to a class 4 felony. one commentator, victoria hayes, jd, believed that although illinois' legal definition of a "companion animal hoarder" is a step in the right direction, the definition does not provide any extra tools to a prosecutor. animal hoarding itself is not prohibited by the statute, she said, and the prosecutor must still show a violation of section 3 of the humane care for animals act. it is important to note that animal hoarding itself is not prohibited by the illinois statute. hawaii, on the other hand, specifically outlaws animal hoarding. in 2008, animal hoarding became a misdemeanor offense. hawaii's penal code now provides: (1) a person commits the offense of animal hoarding if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; (a) possesses more than fifteen dogs, cats, or a combination of dogs and cats; (b) fails to provide necessary sustenance for each dog or cat; and (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. (2) animal hoarding is a misdemeanor. hawaii's 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 the 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 statute does not mandate psychological counseling for convicted hoarders or restrict future animal ownership. anti-hoarding legislation has been proposed, but not passed, in several other states. hoarding-specific municipal ordinances while a state may not have an animal hoarding specific statute, its municipalities may have animal hoarding specific ordinances. for instance, the city of alto, georgia's ordinance specifically prohibits hoarders. the ordinance defines a hoarder as a person or entity that: (a) collects animals and fails to provide them with humane/adequate care; (b) collects dead animals that are not properly disposed of as required by this article; or (c) collects, houses, or harbors animals in filthy, unsanitary conditions that constitute a health hazard to the animals being kept, and/or to the animals or residents of adjacent property. if a person is convicted of being a hoarder under this ordinance, that person may not own, possess, or have on his premises in alto any animal for one year from the date of conviction. the person may also be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 and/or by imprisonment in the common jail of the town not to exceed six months. the animal law coalition has a model animal hoarding specific ordinance (available under "resources" at its website) that can be adapted by various communities. more controversially, a municipality may limit the number of pets a person is allowed to keep in his or her home in hopes of preventing animal hoarding. these are called pet limitation ordinances. gary j. patronek, in the problem of animal hoarding, municipal lawyer 6 (2001), stated that pet limitation ordinances 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." while a hoarding specific ordinance, like alto, prohibits 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. as mentioned previously in this article, the number of animals involved alone is not a determinative factor in identifying hoarding and it is possible for a person to successfully care for a large number of animals. examples of pet limitation ordinances include: aurora, colorado and banks county, georgia. in banks county, georgia, the number of dogs a person can own differs based on the zone in which the person's property is located. some pet limitation ordinances, however, provide exemptions to the pet restrictions. for instance, in great falls, montana, a person who owns or harbors any more than the number of dogs and cats permitted by the ordinance for a period of more than thirty (30) days must obtain a multiple animal permit. additionally, a breeder can be exempt from the ordinance by obtaining a multiple animal hobby breeder permit. these exemptions are, no doubt, provided to lessen the opposition and problems of pet limitation ordinances. problems with prosecuting hoarders prosecuting animal hoarding cases is "complex, time consuming, and costly; as made evident in the primrose case, the high cost of caring for animals rescued from hoarders, who often must be cared for at the rescuer's expense, is a huge disincentive for prosecuting these types of cases. especially since the animal rescue operation may never be compensated for its expenses. further, as dr. gary patronek explains, "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." this lack of communication among various governmental agencies, such as code enforcement, the health department, and animal control, impedes the detection of animal hoarders and thereby the prosecution of hoarders. further, since animal hoarding cases do not get widespread attention, they do not garner community support, which is also a disincentive for prosecution. 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. 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. when hoarders are prosecuted, there is broad inconsistency in the number and severity of charges brought. these inconsistencies may arise because some prosecutors and judges discourage multiple charges, believing that they "clog" the system. the difficulty of proving each charge also accounts for these inconsistencies. 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. 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 that create 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. united kingdom in the united kingdom, an rspca spokeswoman said the society was campaigning for legislation to monitor people who take in large numbers of animals. dangers the health issues in animal hoarding encompass a variety of concerns related to both individual and public health. animal hoarding is the cause of many severe health risks that threaten the hoarded animals, individuals living in hoarding residences, and surrounding neighbors. health effects on animals due to the harmful effects on the health of the animals involved, animal hoarding is considered a form of cruelty to animals. hoarders often fail to provide basic care for their animals, thus resulting in disease and often death. the primary animal health issues involved are malnourishment and problems related to overcrowding and neglect. consequences of hoarding are long-lasting and continue to affect the animals even after they have been rescued and provided with better care. malnourishment lack of sufficient food and water is a common feature of hoarding situations. the immediate consequence of this is starvation and death. one study found at least one dead animal present in over half of examined cases, the leading cause of death being an insufficient food and water supply. malnourishment also leads to increased susceptibility to disease, and the hoarded animals are often in advanced stages of sickness. furthermore, when there is a limited food supply, animals may resort to aggressive behavior in competing for available food, killing and sometimes even eating other animals. overcrowding overcrowding also leads to acute animal health problems in hoarding situations. the number of animals found in hoarding cases range from dozens to several hundreds, with extreme cases involving over a thousand animals. animals are confined to houses, apartments, or trailer-homes. in one case, 306 cats were removed from a home, 87 of which were dead. corpses were found embedded in the chimney and living room furniture. in addition to lack of living space, overcrowding facilitates the spread of diseases among animals. furthermore, in cases where more than one species is confined to the same living space, animals can pose a danger to one other due to inter-species aggression. owner neglect various other health problems arise from hoarders' neglect of the animals and inability to provide basic care for them. lack of veterinary attention is notable among these. hoarders, refusing to acknowledge the deteriorating health conditions of their animals and scared they will be forced to give up custody, often refuse to take their animals to veterinarians. as a result, diseases are left untreated and allowed to become more severe. another problem tied to neglect is poor sanitary conditions for the animals. basic animal waste management is absent in virtually all animal-hoarding situations, and animals are filthy and often infected with parasites as a result. furthermore, animals suffer behaviorally from a lack of socialization caused by an absence of normal interaction with other animals. lasting consequences many of these health problems continue to cause suffering even after the animals are rescued. strained animal shelters or humane societies, forced to prioritize when dealing with numerous rescued animals, may be unable to provide immediate treatment to many animals. furthermore, many of the rescued animals, due to health or behavioral problems, may not be suitable for adoption. euthanasia, even in cases where the animals are not beyond rehabilitation, is often the only option for rescued animals. the effects of hoarding on the health and socialization of the animals involved are severe and lasting, taking heavy tolls on both their physical and psychological well-being. health effects on humans animal hoarding also causes many health problems for the people involved. hoarders, by definition, fail to correct the deteriorating sanitary conditions of their living spaces, and this gives rise to several health risks for those living in and around hoarding residences. animal hoarding is at the root of a string of human health problems including poor sanitation, fire hazards, zoonotic diseases, envenomation, and neglect of oneself and one's dependents. sanitation concerns poor sanitation practices, a general characteristic of hoarding households, pose health risks to both animals and humans. in typical hoarding residences, animal waste is found coating interior surfaces, including beds, countertops, and cupboards. in one case, floors and other surfaces were found to be covered in a six-inch layer of feces and garbage. in addition to severe odors which may pose a nuisance to neighbors, animal waste poses