A stupid question that needs answering

[figmo]

Ganked from kayshapero who ganked it from ataniell93, who ganked it from somewhere else....

FEMA is now taking a national petition to see how many Americans want to allow hurricane survivors to be allowed to take their pets with them as they evacuate or pet rescue agencies to be allowed to come into ravaged areas and rescue pets. The number is 1-202-646-2763. Everyone call this number and let them know that all life is valuable. When you have done calling, let everyone you know know about this number. Even as I type, the ASPCA is readying a truck convoy to head for New Orleans and the thousands of animals dying there. It's coming down as something of a paramilitary operation. Again, please call FEMA. 1-202-646-2763. Besides donating to any of the charitable organizations out there, this is one of the more important things we can do.

msminlr tried calling and didn't even get an answering machine and recommends waiting till business hours Monday to try.

To me this is a no-brainer. Who wouldn't want to allow folks to evacuate their non-human family members? If I had to evacuate, Lady would be the first "thing" to go into the car (her "doggie Dramamine" would be second, followed by supplies).

Comments

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

It's very important to explain more than the humane-to-animals rationale:

• Many residents with pets will refuse to evacuate unless they can take the pets, so making accommodations for pets will save lives.
  
• Outside pets left after a disaster will increase the problems of stray animals in an area afterwards.

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

It looks (http://www.livejournal.com/users/minisinoo/247743.html) like it's another internet hoax. There is an online petition about pets, but it's not directed at FEMA and, well, it's an online petition.

[howeird]

Saving the pets is a no-brainer. Putting them in the shelters is not.
As important as pets are, this is a time when doing what is best for the pet may be to shelter him/her/it until the owner has the space, time and wherewithal to take care of the pet. It's hard enough keeping a shelter clean and disease-free when it's wall to wall people, adding pets would make it nigh on impossible.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Even if it were true, I don't believe it's about allowing people to evacuate with their own transport, it would be about evacuating pets on things like busses.

Frankly, if my choice were to evacuate another human being or a dog? The dog can walk. If my choice is to put another person in the limited space in a shelter or take in a cat? The cat can bloody well stay outside.

If it was a choice between somone's kid and someone's pet? Sorry, pet, but you just don't rank. Period.

[aliza250.livejournal.com]

The flip side:

- someone bringing their vicious abused guard dog into a shelter full of little kids.
- A shelter full of normally-well-behaved pets going nuts under the stress.

During the Okanagan Mountain Fire, the local animal shelters volunteered to take in animals, and rescue squads went into the evacuated areas to find animals that had been left behind or gone missing in the chaos; that's reasonable. Spending tax dollars allocated to saving people to saving pets is not.

In any case, as was already pointed out, this thing has HOAX written in big flashing neon letters all over it. FEMA has better things to do right now, we would hope, and any policy change this expensive is not going to be settled by a knee-jerk call-in number.

[kayshapero]

Well, if it is a hoax, than someone's let themselves in for a hellacious lot of phone calls so they can pretend to be from FEMA. Serves them right. :)

There have been actual calls and the other end of the line did not say it was a hoax, so it's not someone wishing a lot of excess calls on FEMA. And at least one person was referred to that on-line petition, so it could also be an attempt to drum up support for it.

Or it could actually be for real, as a public good will gesture, having nothing to do with whatever they're doing.

[cellio]

I can grudgingly understand a desire to keep some shelters pet-free, but only so long as some suitable provisions are made for the pets -- ideally some pets-permitted shelters that people afraid of dogs etc don't go to. But that's about shelterss; refusing to let the people onto the boats/helicoptors/trucks etc at all without their pets is inexcusable. The cat on my lap isn't taking a space a person could have occupied, after all, and if they won't let me into the shelter they can just drop me by the side of the road and I'll fend for myself.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Suppose you're on a plane, bus, etc with someone allergic to cats?

[cellio]

There are two kinds of allergies, inconvenient and deadly. I've never heard of a deadly pet allergy, but maybe that can exist. Failing that, people in an evacuation have to understand that they might be uncomfortable. I'm allergic to many perfumes; do I get to boot their wearers off the bus so I can avoid getting sick? Or do I just have to live with it for the duration of the trip?

Dog allergy

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

... three times now I've nearly been taken to hospital because I almost stopped breathing because of pet allergies. (Luckily in two cases the inhaler and antihistamines kicked in, the third time I *should* have gone to hospital but instead stayed outside of the house with the dog and suffered badly for about six hours)

pickledginger spent several days in hospital here in the UK after an asthma attack (which was quite possibly an allergic reaction, though we'll never know).

Yes, if someone is wearing a perfume that makes you physically ill, they can stop using it or get off the bus.

Re: Dog allergy

[figmo.livejournal.com]

They should have separate evacuation areas for folks with pets, but dammit, allow the pets!

[kayshapero]

Exactly. Heck, back when my daughter had pet goldfish, my emergency evacuation plans from here included them (large plastic bags of the sort you bring them home from the store in as an interim, with a small, portable fishtank to decant them into once we stopped moving. Not perfect, but better than leaving them.) It's a matter of basic responsibility, and nobody who doesn't understand that has any business acquiring a real pet. Get a tomagachi

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

No sane person would advocate adding a thousand stressed out dogs to the mess we had in the Superdome last week. Of course, no sane person would have advocated stuffing that many people in it in the first place, with no security and no support, and leaving them to rot for 5 days. I think it would be a very good goal to make shelters decent enough places, with enough space, privacy, and resources, that it *wouldn't* be insane to allow people to bring their animals, for the benefit of the people.

The point isn't to give people the right to have their pets displace people in the rescue effort, it's just to give them the right to stay where they are if they can't bring their pets. There are non-animal people (a group that sadly includes quite a few pet owners) and there are animal people. To the non animal people, a pet is just another material possession, and it makes no more sense to be sentimental about a pet to them than a favorite shirt. To animal people, a pet is a family member. How would the non-animal people feel if they were told "Get on the bus *now* or we'll drag you in handcuss, and no, you can't bring your child?" That is what the animal people feel when they say "no, you can't bring your dog". Call us crazy if you want to, but *don't* say we don't actually feel that, because you obviously don't have a clue.

When I imagine myself stranded in a flood, my position is: I'm not leaving without my dogs. I'll wait here until you've gotten everyone else out without complaining, and I hope you'll come back for me then, but you'll have to shoot me to get me out without them.

Florida has/had animal friendly shelters...

[shadowe.livejournal.com]

And so should all other disaster preparedness areas have them. I would not leave without my pets either. Period.

I agree totally with tigertoy. We do not mean displacing people for pets, rather making provisions for those with pets, to keep those pets with them when they evacuate. There is a HUGE difference.

Namaste,
Shadowe

[cat-herder.livejournal.com]

I called the number. She was very polite and said that it was a non-governmental agency that was taking the poll, not FEMA.

She said the petition is on

www.thepetitionsite.com

Figmo, you might want to change your posting.

As for animals in shelters. Ever notice that you will have a conference center next to a stadium? Large hotels near conference centers?

They are doing it right in Houston. They have the Astrodome and a large center next door. People walk over to visit their pets.

Good disaster planning would involve paired sites being ready - one to take people and one to take their animals.

Allowing people to take their animals is, to be very businesslike, a cost-effective rescue method. The animal is being controlled by a trusted human, usually is travelling at the feet or in the lap of the person, and is accounted for. This lessens the need for individuals to comb the city and break down doors (compromising the home's security, which costs the homedwellers and the insurance company). It also reduced the public health risk of wild dogs, feral cats, and decomposing pets.