Legislation would require pet to be included in evacuations

cnn.com ^ | 9/22/05 | AP

[cwiz24]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal disaster grants to state and local governments should be conditioned on how they accommodate pets in their evacuation plans, say lawmakers disturbed that some Hurricane Katrina victims refused to leave home because they couldn't take their animals with them.

"I cannot help but wonder how many more people could have been saved had they been able to take their pets," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-California, said Thursday.

[republican4ever]

I guess you posted the key word here: RESPONSIBILITY, individual responsibility, that is. Not Daddy Government's responsibility!

[taxesareforever]

I won't leave my dogs any more than I would be willing to leave a child.

I suppose a constitutional amendment is in order to allow animals to vote.

[mel]

Now see you have a plan, at least it is an idea. I don't see why it has to be just leave all the animals to die

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

Only someone with zero experience in disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, or non-combatant evacuation operations (NEO) could conceive of such a patently stupid idea.

The only time those operations occur is when the "normal" world has pretty much turned to a "Sierra" sandwich, and you are left with the U.S. military as your last resort. Otherwise, it would be an orderly with drawl using conventional civilian modes of transportation. When you have to call in the military, you are down to let the military evacuate the people or let them die as your courses of action.

For those who have never been aboard a military vessel or aircraft; here's a clue: These craft were not built with animals in mind. They only marginally accommodate human beings.

Back when West African and Haitian "humanitarian" operations were all the rage of under the leadership of the most incompetent and corrupt commander-in-chief the U.S. military has ever had the misfortune to endure serving under -- there was a series of excellent "Personal For" messages from Commanding Officers who had "been there, done that" about how to keep the evacuees from acting like animals; killing and raping each other, particularly the children. Also, it became obvious that elementary toilet training, even among adults, was not part of the cultural curriculum.

In short, the worst looters from New Orleans were true gentlemen compared to this crowd.

Into this mix, you cannot throw pets. It takes all you have just to get the people out.

[najida]

Most of the serious breeders and pet owners etc (dogs, cats, birds) have their own cages, food containers etc for evacuations.

I see both sides of this, and my 'zoo' is one of the reasons I won't ever evacuate (reason #1 you're seeing on the highways out of Houston).

With that being said, the world has changed. More and more people are attached to their animals like never before. We can grouse and moan about it, but bottom line, it's something that now has to be taken into consideration in an evac. Segregate if necessary.

But I tell ya now, I'd rather be hunkered down with the animal folk that the ones who left Fluffy chained to the back fence >:>

[agarrett]

I could not agree more.

  I'm amazed how many people agree with this lame-brained idea. It is, to be blunt, dumb.

  Look, I love my pets too. And if I'm evacuating on my own, of course I'll take them with me. But if I had to take, say, another family as well (maybe their car broke, whatever...) the pets stay behind.

  And in a rescue mission, the rescuers better be going after people. Pets are probably not at their best behaved during something like that, and it'll get worse if you get multiple pets. And then try to keep them in close quarters...

  This is a hideous idea all around, and captures the current award for "feel-good legislation."

Drew Garrett

[republican4ever]

"But I tell ya now, I'd rather be hunkered down with the animal folk that the ones who left Fluffy chained to the back fence"

Me too!

[sinkspur]

If you can't afford your own transportation for your family AND your pets, you got no business owning pets and imposing the cost/burden on society for the rescue of same.

Sorry if this seems heartless. A dog takes as much room in a shelter or a chopper as a child.

I suspect you're going to lose this argument. The legislation says the funding is contingent upon state and local governments working these arrangements out. That means planning.

You are not going to dictate to people whether they can or cannot own pets, and governments are going to have to figure out how to deal with this situation.

Besides, nobody said anything about putting animals in shelters for people. The Baton Rouge shelter accepts people with pets, but hands them off to the Louisiana SPCA, where they are cared for.

Why can somebody take a big bag of mementoes, but a little kid can't take a kitten?

[republican4ever]

Well, I see your point. But, what about the people who do stay behind because of their pets alone? How should that be handled?

[sinkspur]

People in this country really have lost all perspective on the value of human life, and this is another example.

Yes they have, when they refuse to recognize the role pets play in some people's lives. Seniors, children, and me, for instance, value pets as members of the family and would stay behind and die rather than leave any member of the family behind.

If the respective levels of government don't want to deal with that reality, they will continue to encounter people who will not evacuate, even when ordered to.

Now, those people (like me) could be left to die, and not be rescued, since I refused to leave in the first place.

But I would never vote for a politician who would do that, and I suspect there are millions of others like me.

So, it's likely this legislation is going to pass, overwhelmingly.

[Roccus]

Hey!! Lantos!!!! DGSOS!!!!!!!

[Dallas59]

What about legislation to protect my plants? I have a 15 year old potted palm. It's big. It's going with me. Screw anybody that gets in it's way. < / sar>

[cannonball]

By all means, take the pets. If rations run short they might make an extra meal.

[Steelerfan]

Well because the mementoes don't run all over the place, require feeding and make messes. And as a practical matter I do not think you are allowed to take whatever you want with you if you are evacuated by the government or are given housing in a shelter.

I say all this as someone that has owned dogs my entire life. I know that if I were evacuating my family, we would take our dog with us and I suspect if we had to be evacuated, my family would go and I would be staying with her. But these evacuations only happen in crisis situations and to require, as a condition for federal funding, that all these local agencies care for pets in the midst of a crisis without regard to the realities of the situation strikes me as some ridiculous grandstanding.

[Dallas59]

Does this include all pets? Pythons, spiders, mice, gerbils, turtles, birds.....

[browardchad]

Wouldn't it be more responsible, if you live in an evacuation area and have no place to go except a shelter, not to have pets?

This cycle of increased hurricanes may last ten to twenty years, so maybe it's time for people in at-risk areas to rethink long-range plans.

Why the heck do we need federal legislation to replace common sense?

[livius]

I think it's idiotic. Many states - such as Florida - have shelters that accept pets and this is announced by officials. Pet owners can decide how important this is to them, but the rest of the world shouldn't have to wait while they "rescue" their pets and then put up with these pets in the limited shelter space. Sorry, guys, but the important thing is to save the people first.

The other point - most of the time, you're not evacuated for a very long time. Leave food and water and your pets will be fine. If not, animals are usually better than people at surviving. Your pet may outlive you.

As for larger pets, the big problem is that they tend to escape and their owners can't be found later. Have your horse chipped. Or do the simple Florida trick and paint your phone number on his side.

[cannonball]

Ever been to escape and evasion school? You learn that you can eat just about anything.

[Tax-chick]

Some of those are easy. A spider, mouse, gerbil, or small turtle can be put in a Tupperware container, and an emergency supply of whatever it eats in a ziplock bag. It's big pets that cause the most problems, particularly those that bite and/or poop all over the landscape (e.g., dogs).

[sinkspur]

But these evacuations only happen in crisis situations and to require, as a condition for federal funding, that all these local agencies care for pets in the midst of a crisis without regard to the realities of the situation strikes me as some ridiculous grandstanding.

The problem, as I see it, came in the initial stages, when no one was allowed to take their animals because of the frenetic nature of the evacuations. Pets were ripped from the arms of children, and dogs which could have sat in a lap were left behind.

A few days later, animals were regularly taken out with evacuees.

I understand the exigencies of these situations, but pet owners were appalled at the arbitrariness of the evacuation decisions.

Obviously, this can be worked out, as we are witnessing in Texas and have witnessed in NO. Perhaps just the mere threat of such legislation will be enough to force local officials to form some kind of policy that will allow evacuees to at least take their small domestic pets.