maybe he didn't want the help, but it also just didn't seem like the main authority (the dog warden, in this case) didn't really even try. i could be wrong, as an article obviously won't disclose every single detail of what happened. but seeing as the dog warden was interviewed, which leads me to assume he was some sort of head authority in this case, shouldn't he have taken the dogs into custody? i also assume he was making trips out to this man's property because, well, as the dog warden you're supposed to be enforcing animal ordinance laws, i believe. i know the guy was in a rural area where there are probably less restrictions, and maybe his dogs appeared taken care of. then again, there would have been no inquiry in the first place if things were truly under control. so maybe all efforts were exhausted on the man, but to avoid such a large number of deceased dogs, the dog warden should have stepped in more forcibly for the animals' sakes. regular authorities might not care as much about animals (which i agree should change as well), but at the very least the dog warden is supposed to be someone who does. so perhaps the man was a lost cause -- no grounds to take him into custody, where he could still get help -- but yes, his dogs shouldn't have been treated like they were, too.

That's sad that he was found dead, but at the same time, he should have tried to look for help for his animal hoarding.