Title: Companion Animals and Natural Disasters: The U.S. Experience
1Companion Animals and Natural Disasters The
U.S. Experience
- Marsha L. Baum
- Professor of Law
- University of New Mexico
- January 2009
2Humans 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)
3Legal 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)
4Legal 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
5Companion 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
6Bond 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
7PETS 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
8Created 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.''
9Senate 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.''
10Essential 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.
11Remarks 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.
12FEMA 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
13FEMA 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
14Definition household pet
- See attached FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy.
15FEMA 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
16State 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
17Animal 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
18Does 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
19Likely 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
20Conclusion
- 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