Companion Animals and Natural Disasters: The U.S. Experience

1
Companion Animals and Natural Disasters The
U.S. Experience

• Marsha L. Baum
• Professor of Law
• University of New Mexico
• January 2009

2
Humans Have Greater Value?

• Law places greater value on humans
• Models for Animal Welfare
• Intrinsic value
• Human-Animal Binary
• Weighing the Harm (Simone Watson)
• Companion Animals v. Other Non-human Animals
• Treat all non-human animals the same (Siobhan
  OSullivan)

3
Legal Status of Non-Human Animals in the U.S.

• Property or Person?
• Standing (Northern Spotted Owl v. Lujan)
• Court recognition of feelings human can develop
  for animal companion in tort actions - intangible
  value
• Ward to human guardian some municipalities have
  adopted this language
• Predominant position is homocentric and property
  driven non-human animals valued for value to
  human animals (homocentric) rather than for
  intrinsic value of non-human animals (biocentric)

4
Legal Treatment of AnimalsPre-Katrina

• No federal statutes regarding animal evacuation
• Laws and regulations dealing with handling of
  carcasses and biohazard and dealing with disease
• SART model developed in NC in 1999
  public/private partnership at the state level
• No animals in shelters or on evacuation
  transportation
• CDC report of potential health risks
• Prohibited by state health and safety regulations
• Prohibitions on transport of animals out of state
• Affected states prohibited transport of animals
  out of state
• After prohibitions were lifted, some states would
  not take animals from the disaster area
• Massachusetts refused to host animals for fear of
  diseases such as heartworm

5
Companion Animals and Their People

• Population of companion animals in the United
  States (from APPMA 2005/06 survey)
• Cats 90.5 million (34 of households)
• Dogs 73.9 million (39 of households)
• Birds 16.6 million, Reptiles - 11 million,
  Small animals 18.2 million

6
Bond between Humans and Non-Human Animals

• 74 of dog owners, 60 of cat owners, and 45 of
  bird owners consider their companion animals
  children or family members
• Psychological impact of loss

7
PETS Act

• Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act
  of 2006
• First federal legislation to address evacuation
  of companion animals and service animals
• State and local emergency preparedness plans must
  take into account the needs of individuals with
  household pets and service animals
• Amended the Stafford Disaster Relief and
  Emergency Assistance Act

8
Created new section (g) of 42 U.S.C. 5196b

• (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 prior to, during, and following a major
  disaster or emergency.''

9
Senate amendment provided funding opportunities

• (2) The Director may make financial
  contributions, on the basis of programs or
  projects approved by the Director, to the States
  and local authorities for animal emergency
  preparedness purposes, including the procurement,
  construction, leasing, or renovating of emergency
  shelter facilities and materials that will
  accommodate people with pets and service
  animals.''

10
Essential Assistance to Include Household Pets
and Service Animals

• Amended Section 403(a)(3) of the Robert T.
  Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
  Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(a)(3))
• PROVIDING ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS
  WITH HOUSEHOLD PETS AND SERVICE ANIMALS FOLLOWING
  A DISASTER. Federal agencies may on the direction
  of the President, provide assistance essential to
  meeting immediate threats to life and property
  resulting from a major disaster, as follows(J)
  provision of rescue, care, shelter, and essential
  needs-- (i) to individuals with household pets
  and service animals and (ii) to such pets and
  animals.

11
Remarks by Rep. Dennis Kucinich

• Among the injustices incurred in the gulf coast
  were citizens forced to choose between their own
  safety and that of their pet or service animals.
  And the example that Mr. Lantos gave of the
  9-year-old boy who had to part with his beloved
  dog is an example of the heartbreak that all of
  us can relate to.
• Some chose to compromise their own safety,
  unwilling to evacuate without their pet, despite
  the great risk to themselves and their families.
  Others were forced to leave these important
  friends behind, abandoned and alone. Animals were
  left to survive on their own with little hope of
  survival, causing the very understandable human
  emotions of pain and agony that accompanied this
  choice.
• Some, dependent upon a service animal for their
  own safety and survival, were made to leave their
  companions behind, a direct threat to their own
  security.

12
FEMA Regulations

• Necessary expense means the cost associated with
  acquiring an item or items, obtaining a service,
  or paying for any other activity that meets a
  serious need. 44 C.F.R. 206.111

13
FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy 9523.19

• Eligible Costs Related to Pet Evacuation and
  Sheltering (10/24/2007)
• Expenses related to state and local government
  emergency pet evacuation and sheltering
• Defines household pet, service animal, and
  congregate household pet shelters
• Eligible for reimbursement only as long as pet
  owner is in 403 emergency sheltering
• Included cataloging/tracking system as eligible
  cost

14
Definition household pet

• See attached FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy.

15
FEMA Disaster Assistance Policies

• A comparison research animals v. companion
  animals (DAP 9525.16 v. 9523.19)
• Individual eligible facilities (zoos, research
  facilities, taxidermy collections at museums) can
  recover costs for actions to save animals and
  protect property v. only governmental entities
  can be reimbursed for evacuation and sheltering
  activities

16
State Action Post-Katrina

• States are passing legislation requiring
  inclusion of animals in state disaster plans
• E.g., Louisiana included animals in its disaster
  act in 2006 amendment
• Overall emphasis on public education and personal
  responsibility for planning evacuation of pets
• May not be able to get back to animals if leave
  them
• Economic status element personal pet disaster
  plan recommended e.g., go to pet friendly hotel

17
Animal Welfare Act Rationale Analogous to PETS
Act?

• Right obtained under AWA is the right to have
  animal interests balanced against human interests
  
• Generally human must have direct connection to
  event to have standing to bring suit
• Rationale for PETS Act Take into account needs
  of individuals with household pets and service
  animals Louisiana Plan includes right of
  humans to take companion animals with them in
  evacuation only if no danger to other humans
  animal no interest on its own behalf

18
Does the legislation change the situation for the
animals?

• Language
• Wherever possible
• Without endangering human life
• Take into account in plans
• Household pets
• No consequences for failure to implement plans
• FEMA funding dependent on state plan but not on
  implementation of plan
• Possible penalties at state level? Fines?
  Liability for failure to act?
• Debate included assurances that no funds would be
  taken from human rescue to implement

19
Likely Results?

• Rescuers refuse to allow people to take pets
• Evacuees with horse trailers turned away because
  of narrow road (wild fire in California June
  2007)
• Take pet with you but when get to transport with
  carrier are told no room
• Shelters refuse to accept non-human animals
  including service animals for hygiene and public
  health reasons

20
Conclusion

• Legislation recognizes human interest in
  companion animals and need to evacuate animals to
  save humans continues animals as property
  paradigm
• Unclear impact legislation will have in face of
  disaster requires education of rescuers and
  victims, animal advocates being included in
  emergency planning
• Focus on personal responsibility and need to find
  pet-friendly shelter has impact for those of
  lower socio-economic status requires funding
  sources
• Recognition of intrinsic value of animals and
  animal self-interest in preservation needed to
  give substance to plans or alternatively to
  place consequences on failure to act both go
  against existing legal model of animals as
  property