That's the DUmmies' weekend ruined, in any case.
Posted on 06/30/2006 3:53:55 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
With hurricane season under way and images of Katrina lingering, state lawmakers are turning to the plight of pets in emergencies – an issue among a host of animal-related legislation to reach governors’ desks in recent weeks.
Since May 22, the governors of Florida, Hawaii, New Hampshire and Vermont have signed bills that provide more protection for pets during emergencies. In Louisiana, where animal rights groups estimate thousands of pets died during Katrina, a bill passed by the Legislature June 15 has drawn national attention as the most sweeping attempt to keep pets and their owners together during disasters.
Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that would require states to have emergency evacuation plans for pets in place. Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) have introduced a similar bill that could add federal funding to help states carry out the mandate, though no amount has been specified.
The flurry of new laws and bills has gone beyond pets in emergencies. The Humane Society of the United States reports that, since January 2006,
* Three states (Kansas, Maryland and Montana) have restricted the ownership of exotic animals – including bears, lions and tigers – as pets.
* Three states (Colorado, Georgia and Illinois) have increased penalties for owners of dogs deemed “vicious” or “dangerous.”
* Illinois became the first state to ban certain felons from owning aggressive dogs; among felons specifically targeted are drug manufacturers, who were blamed for using dogs to attack law enforcers.
* Six states (Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina and Washington) have clamped down on animal fighting, including for gambling purposes.
* Arizona and Washington outlawed bestiality, or sexual relations between a human and an animal, bringing to 32 the number of states in which the act is a crime.
In addition, since 2005, legislatures in 21 states have outlawed “Internet hunting” after a Web site premiered offering customers the chance to kill live animals from the safety of their homes, according to the Humane Society. (See related story: State lawmakers bag online hunting).
The post-Katrina pet evacuation laws are about more than saving animals. Victims in storm-affected areas in many cases refused to leave their pets behind.
An October 2005 Zogby International poll found that 49 percent of adults said they would not leave disaster areas without their pets. In New Orleans, 44 percent of those who did not evacuate during Katrina claimed they stayed because of their pets, according to the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
A bill sponsored by Louisiana state Sen. Heulette “Clo” Fontenot (R) would be the most far-reaching to date if signed into law, as expected, by Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D). Both houses approved the bill unanimously.
Like the new Florida and New Hampshire laws, the bill requires that service animals, such as guide dogs, be evacuated with their owners. But it also calls for the establishment of pet shelters in the state and an identification system to reunite pets and their owners after emergencies. The measure, which applies only to cats and dogs, would require local authorities to outfit the animals with bar-coded tags during emergencies.
Fontenot told Stateline.org he introduced his legislation after seeing televised images from Hurricane Katrina in which service animals were left behind.
“I thought it was totally unconscionable to take a person’s only source of independence away from them,” Fontenot said.
The plan is expected to cost the state about $4 million, according to Fontenot, who said federal regulations add to the cost of evacuating pets. In temperatures above 85 degrees, for example, pets must be evacuated in refrigerated trucks, Fontenot said. Temperatures above 85 degrees are routine in Louisiana.
“Those refrigerated trucks are very expensive. We could easily transport those same animals in an open-air flatbed trailer at one quarter of the cost,” he said.
Like Louisiana's measure, the Florida, Hawaii and New Hampshire laws call for authorities to develop plans for pet evacuation. Vermont’s new law requires that state and local emergency planning commissions include representatives from animal rescue organizations and removes from civil liability those who voluntarily shelter pets during emergencies.
In 2005, Maine became the first state to sign an “animal emergency” bill into law. The Maine law established an Animal Response Team to respond to disasters affecting animals.
Animal rights representatives have hailed the state and federal initiatives. Ledy Van Kavage, senior director of legislation and legal training for the American SPCA, said it would be a disgrace if Louisiana did not enact pet evacuation legislation.
“Let’s face it, all eyes are on Louisiana,” Van Kavage said.
Meanwhile, other pet-related legislation has moved speedily through statehouses nationwide.
In the past year, at least 15 states have introduced “dangerous” or “vicious” dog bills, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which tracks state legislation. At least 29 states and the District of Columbia already have laws in place, according to NCSL. Only Ohio's statute bans certain breeds of dogs, including pit bulls and Rottweilers.
States also are getting tough on animal fighting, such as dogfighting, cockfighting and – in the recent cases of Alabama and Mississippi – hog-dog fighting, in which trained dogs attack penned feral hogs. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) signed a bill to outlaw the sport on March 28, and Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (R) followed suit on April 13. Louisiana became the first state to criminalize the practice in 2004.
Cockfighting remains legal in only two states, New Mexico and Louisiana. But that hasn’t prevented some lawmakers from voicing their disapproval. A proposal introduced in January by New Mexico state Sen. John Grubesic (D) sought to make cockfighting the official “state disgrace.”
The start of hurricane season, however, has served as a grim reminder of Katrina and has made pet evacuation during emergencies a top priority for legislators and animal rights groups alike.
“I think it’s a good animal welfare policy, but I also think it’s a good public welfare policy,” said Dan Paden, a researcher with the domestic animal department of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “It goes a long way toward not forcing Americans to abandon, in disasters, all they have left of their lives, which are their animals.”
I'd support some of the laws against animal cruelty or sport killing but I don't want to see a dime spent saving animals that should be spent on saving humans. Fluffy and Fido are luxuries when there's danger and every minute counts.
Could you imagine if the NYPD and NYFD were told they had to rescue pets while trying to get people out of the WTC during 9-11? Not one of those brave firefighters and policemen are worth dying over a dog or a cat.
Sorry, pet lovers, but that's just how I feel and no amount of posting cute photos will change it.
And before I get called "heartless" (which is guaranteed on these threads), I do have my own pet who I love and take care of very well but, if my place was on fire, I wouldn't expect a fireman to risk their life trying to get my pet out. Either I do it myself or it doesn't get done.
....and those people that are allergic to cats and/or dogs will be left behind.
ditto. I totally agree. Legislation spent on making laws protecting animals instead of people. Go Figure. I think this is an avenue to NAIS of city-living pets and animals always kept inside. They have to be able to know where to find the animals so they can confiscate them.
The best way to get people who have pets rescued in a disaster is to get their pets rescued. One of the lessons of Huricane Katrina is that there should be special shelters for pets set up next to the ones for the people.
Thank you- I believe you are right.
You are right, of course, but too many on these threads see rescuing an animal with its human as bumping some other human off the rescue boat.
What is forgotten is that a near majority of people with animals will not leave without them (I wouldn't). Many who drowned in New Orleans drowned with their pets.
People who don't get it will, I'm afraid, never get it.
Very well said. My sentiments, exactly! Owning a pet comes with the responsibility of caring for said pet under ANY circumstance. Unless, of course, you're incapacitated...then it's up to your pet to save YOU! ;)
I have no problem with them allowing people that need Guide Dogs to have the extra assistance, but if you don't have evac plans and emergency supplies that include your pets, why should other taxpayers in your state (and other states via the Bottomless Federal Pot-O-Fools-Gold) pay for it?
Yes, I'm heartless as well, LOL! However, I have bottled water, extra dog meds, canned dog & cat food, extra leashes, an animal first aid kit and old blankets in my Emergency Tornado/Blizzard Kit. Our pets are a part of our Pack and are treated as such. :)
The 90 chickens, however, will have to fend for themselves. I can't really see stockpiling that much chicken feed, and they cannot be relied upon in an emergency whereas maybe my dog would dial 911, or stay by me to keep me company in my last few moments on Earth before I headed for The Big Fire Hydrant in the Sky. ;)
That's the DUmmies' weekend ruined, in any case.
Which is better? Saving 50 people and 0 pets or saving 30 people and 20 pets?
If somebody is going to choose their pets over a human being, they are a disgrace to humanity.
One wonders if this added protection for our four legged friends will mean more suffering and death for our two legged ones.
But what about same-genus unions? ;)
Your proposition is a false choice. It's really not an either/or.
It's not a zero sum game, TT. IOW, it's not either-or.
It's both.
The thing is, many of the people in NO could evacuate; they had cars. They just didn't want to, afraid that their houses would be looted when they got back.
If not for the flood, they would have been.
And, if I were presented with having to save my pet over a human I didn't know, I can't say I'd automatically save the human.
Your statement above is, again, a false choice, as it is perfectly possible to save both.
I can't see any reason why it should. Fools with cars in NO stayed home rather than evacuate because the NO police couldn't be relied on to keep the looters off the streets.
I agree. It's how pet owners see their pets. At least how I do.
Some of these provisions are a bit much, such as requiring refrigerated cars. I can see that a tractor trailer could get up above the torture temperatures though. How about requiring ventilation?
As for going into a burning building, let the fireman decide for themselves, or let the pet owner save their own animals if possible. I can't see requiring them to go in for my animals, but I am pretty sure I would, and would be REALLY pissed if me carrying my pet onto the rescue boat caused some other people to bitch. That's where I side with my pet. I guess I'll take the next shuttle.
And I wouldn't think I was done rescuing from say a flood if I saw a bunch of pets on rooftops. If I was rescuing, I would not search a building and not grab the pets too.
This kind of thinking reminds me of that scene in the movie Titanic where people were sniping at each other about getting into the boat, and who got the boats. Besides the obvious class warfare analogies they were pushing, it showed how scared and selfish they were getting. Would the pets have to wait on that boat? Sure, but they have a right to a boat if there are enough.
bump
NAIS has a sister. Meet PAWS: http://www.nopaws.org/DFOWDPCA_1.pdf
Skinner, Pitt, et. al., will have to use alternatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
