Saving Pets, and Their Owners
Via Tammy Bruce, H.R. 3858 would require state and local authorities to include pets and service animals in their disaster evacuation plans. The bill reads in its entirety:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005′.
SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OPERATIONAL PLANS.
Section 613 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5196b) is amended–
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
‘(g) Standards for State and Local Emergency Preparedness Operational Plans- In approving standards for State and local emergency preparedness operational plans pursuant to subsection (b)(3), the Director shall ensure that such plans take into account the needs of individuals with household pets and service animals following a major disaster or emergency.’.
This one’s a no-brainer. Call your Congresscritter and tell him to support it.
UPDATE: All this comes not a minute too soon.
UPDATE x2: For those would-be Cruella de Villes who can’t bear the thought of one taxpayer dime going to pay for anyone’s pet or service dog, bear in mind that 42 U.S.C. § 5196b is a federal funding statute, not a direct mandate. If Louisiana wants to retain its policy of screwing pet owners, and soaking the taxpayers twice on service dogs that will need to be replaced, they can still do it; they just won’t be able to ask the rest of the country to help pay for it.
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:12 am
That’s a joke, right? You aren’t seriously in favor of spending tax money on animals, are you?
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:54 am
emergency animal control
Good grief, people. Get a grip. Thousands of animals just as innocent as your pet dog are killed everyday to make your hamburgers and chicken sandwiches and leather shoes.
October 2nd, 2005 at 9:42 am
Do you really think that would help? New Orleans couldn’t even follow their disaster plan for humans.
October 2nd, 2005 at 12:51 pm
As someone who has refused to go to a shelter because my dog would have frozen/starved while I was warm and safe, let me tell you that if people have a place to go where they can have their pets or a safe place to leave their pets, pet owners are more likely to seek shelter during a natural disaster. Hw many people in NO wouldn’t leave because of their animals and needed MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE helo rescue later?
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:29 pm
No, Doc, it’s not a joke. Maybe you think cops snatching a dog from a little boy and making him cry “Snowball! Snowball!” until he vomited was N.O.P.D’s finest hour, but I sure as hell don’t, and I can’t imagine how anyone in his right mind would. I always thought the bit about heartless Republicans being against cute puppies - or even against the people who own them - was some silly Democrat cliché. Apparently not.
Alice: I’m not saying N.O. did a great job following their crappy disaster plan, which was crappy even for humans. I am saying that it’s better to do a crappy job following a good plan than it is to start with a crappy plan and do a crappy job on top of that.
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:53 pm
caltechgirl, that’s actually a good point and it deserves some thought. But what about the other side: the old woman with forty cats who won’t go anywhere unless the firemen find some way to capture, contain, and transport every one of the cats? How many people are going to die while the firemen are running around trying to catch frightened cats?
Xrlq: I responded to your “heartless Republican” comment in an update to the post. In short: “how dare you call me a Republican”!
October 2nd, 2005 at 6:01 pm
They’re animals. They were on their own during disasters long before man came along and they became pets. And if they do die, you can buy a new one. Let’s focus the resources on the people.
October 2nd, 2005 at 9:11 pm
You can’t have it both ways, Doc. Either the needs of pet owners should be taken into account or they shouldn’t. If they should, your entire premise is worthless. First you ranted and raved about taxpayer dollars going to animals, which H.R. 3858 might do to a slight extent, then you started in about pets displacing people, which it probably would not do, and now you’re talking about it allowing a cat collector to displaces dozens of people, which it almost certainly would not do. I hate to sound too radical, but how about focusing instead on what H.R. 3858 would do, which is merely to require city and state planners to take these issues into account(and then only as a condition of receiving federal funds)?
October 2nd, 2005 at 10:48 pm
I didn’t rant or rave about tax money, Xrlq, I just wondered whether you were serious. Really. I wasn’t sure if you were joking or not.
My view is that the needs of the pet owners should be taken into account. The needs of the pets, not. How these owner needs should be taken into is arguable. Do you save only small animals that can be carried in the owner’s lap? Do you save all kinds of animals or do you let goldfish die? What about lizards? What about finches? Is there a limit to how many pets a given individual can claim saving for?
And if you are gong to save pets because there is so much human affection vested in them, what about family heirlooms? What about photo albums?
For your other point, I’ll note that a disaster is what you get when something bad happens and there aren’t enough resources to handle it without serious damage or loss of life. By definition, there is a lack of resources. So I stand by my claim that spending any resources on pets can potentially endanger humans.
I’m arguing general policy here. If that particular piece of proposed legislation doesn’t require the expenditure of emergency resources to save pets, then I may not have a problem with it.
October 2nd, 2005 at 11:42 pm
I didn’t want to do a second trackback to the same post, but I’ve written a long post on my blog to explain why your attitude here concerns me. I want to clarify that I didn’t intend to lump you in with the “barbarians”, but I’m concerned that you seem to be pushing in that direction.
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:15 am
Then you should support this bill, as that’s exactly what it says.
With all due respect, that’s insane. Of course the needs of the pets should not be given anywhere near the level of consideration that people are, but it doesn’t follow that their welfare should not be taken into account at all. But again, that’s not mandated by this bill, which discusses only the needs of the owner. So can I count on you to support of this bill you originally thought I had to be joking about?
I don’t know what dictionary you use, but mine doesn’t define a disaster in terms of having vs. not having adequate resources to deal with it. Certainly the plans approved by FEMA under 42 U.S.C. 5196b are not intended to be limited to such scenarios. Part of the reason we have them is so that there will be adequate resources to deal with the next disaster when it strikes.
Last and least, I’m not sure what your follow-up post is intended to prove, but by excusing animal cruelty you make my point better than I ever could. Those people on Animal Precinct should go to prison. They shouldn’t go for nearly as long as they would if they had done the same thing to a human, of course, but they don’t, so what’s the fuss?