Companion Animals and Natural Disasters: The U.S. Experience Marsha L. Baum Professor of Law University of New Mexico January 2009

Humans Have Greater Value? Law places greater value on humans Law places greater value on humans Models for Animal Welfare Models for Animal Welfare Intrinsic value Intrinsic value Human-Animal Binary Human-Animal Binary Weighing the Harm (Simone Watson) Weighing the Harm (Simone Watson) Companion Animals v. Other Non-human Animals Companion Animals v. Other Non-human Animals Treat all non-human animals the same (Siobhan O’Sullivan) Treat all non-human animals the same (Siobhan O’Sullivan)

Legal Status of Non-Human Animals in the U.S. Property or Person? Property or Person? Standing (Northern Spotted Owl v. Lujan) Standing (Northern Spotted Owl v. Lujan) Court recognition of feelings human can develop for animal companion in tort actions - intangible value 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 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) 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)

Legal Treatment of Animals Pre-Katrina No federal statutes regarding animal evacuation No federal statutes regarding animal evacuation Laws and regulations dealing with handling of carcasses and biohazard and dealing with disease 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 SART model – developed in NC in 1999 – public/private partnership at the state level No animals in shelters or on evacuation transportation No animals in shelters or on evacuation transportation CDC report of potential health risks CDC report of potential health risks Prohibited by state health and safety regulations Prohibited by state health and safety regulations Prohibitions on transport of animals out of state Prohibitions on transport of animals out of state Affected states prohibited 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 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 Massachusetts refused to host animals for fear of diseases such as heartworm

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

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 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 Psychological impact of loss

PETS Act Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 First federal legislation to address evacuation of companion animals and service animals 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 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 Amended the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

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.''

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.''

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.

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.

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. §

FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy 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

Definition household pet See attached FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy. See attached FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy.

FEMA Disaster Assistance Policies A comparison – research animals v. companion animals (DAP v ) 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

State Action Post-Katrina States are passing legislation requiring inclusion of animals in state disaster plans States are passing legislation requiring inclusion of animals in state disaster plans E.g., Louisiana included animals in its disaster act in 2006 amendment 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 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 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 Economic status element – personal pet disaster plan recommended – e.g., go to pet friendly hotel

Animal Welfare Act Rationale – Analogous to PETS Act? Right obtained under AWA is the right to have animal interests balanced against human interests 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 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 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

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

Likely Results? Rescuers refuse to allow people to take pets Rescuers refuse to allow people to take pets Evacuees with horse trailers turned away because of narrow road (wild fire in California June 2007) 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 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 Shelters refuse to accept non-human animals including service animals for hygiene and public health reasons

Conclusion Legislation recognizes human interest in companion animals and need to evacuate animals to save humans – continues animals as property paradigm 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 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 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 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