Floods Prompt Call For Pet Evacuation Laws

[mona]

It is definitely the ideal situation to evacuate early in an emergency , however , sometimes the speed of fire and flood does not allow the time for this planning and you may have to make a splt second decision to go.

It would make this decision easier and safer for people and emergency service personnel, of people could grab their pets and evacuate , knowing they will be able to take them into shelters.

It makes no sense that animals are not permitted to stay with owners and just increases ten fold an already stressful and emotional situation.

It is true that the US learned much after Hurrican Katrina - hopefully our authorities will also reflect when the time is right and the changes allowing pets in shelters will be enacted.

Thoughts to all the people in QLD and other areas experiencing these horrendous conditions.

[WoofnHoof]

i think New Zealand needs to learn from what has happened in Australia over the last few years as far as disasters are concerned and put some similar lawns in place for dealing with animals in the event of disaster...

I thought I read somewhere that NZ did have laws that included pets as part of the evacuation plan?

[Toolz]

i think New Zealand needs to learn from what has happened in Australia over the last few years as far as disasters are concerned and put some similar lawns in place for dealing with animals in the event of disaster...

I thought I read somewhere that NZ did have laws that included pets as part of the evacuation plan?

not as far as i was aware but hey if they now do then YAY for us

[LizT]

I remember when we were outside doing ember spotting on the afternoon of 'Black Saturday'. I came inside to find my youngest standing there with a backpack of her 'precious things' on her back. The lead on her Cavalier and holding a Pet crate with our, then new, 8 week old puppy.

There was never a question of them being left behind.

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

I honestly believe that IF evac centres were able to accommodate people's pets - to make some provisions for pets - even if that meant having some evac centres take pets and some which don't, or having separate areas for people with pets so that those who don't wish to be with pets don't need to be - if that were the case, then people with pets WOULD get out early. We'd want to so we could grab the best spots for ourselves and our pets.

It's the uncertainty which makes people hesitate in disaster situations. When people have to ask themselves, "How long do I wait with my dogs before I need to leave them behind?" then we have situations where people just won't leave until it's far too late for their own safety.

We should *never* have to leave our pets behind. Many households have pets and they must be catered to, it's the humane thing to do.

Why should I be forced into leaving my family behind in a disaster? If they were human, there'd be no question of them accompanying me but because they're canine, there is no official compulsion for authorities to ensure their safety in an emergency.

And then we have situations where there was literally no warning.

My mother has family in Grantham, Toowoomba, Chinchilla, Dalby...there was no warning in Grantham or Toowoomba. And two floods in Chinchilla and Dalby.

ETA - we are unsure of whether any family members and their pets are safe or not. It's been very difficult to make contact, given that landlines are down...

Edited January 14, 2011 by lillysmum

[LizT]

Although I dearly love my animals and in a pre-organised evaculation there is time to make arrangements for our pets I do believe that human life is of much more importance and if it's a sudden emergency one should be realistic and understand that it may be necesary to leave the animals behind. My first thought would be to get my family safely out of danger.

There is no point in heroics if you are all going to burn or drown.

Edited January 15, 2011 by LizT

[xKALIx]

Although I dearly love my animals and in a pre-organised evaculation there is time to make arrangements for our pets I do believe that human life is of much more importance and if it's a sudden emergency one should be realistic and understand that it may be necesary to leave the animals behind. My first thought would be to get my family safely out of danger.

There is no point in heroics if you are all going to burn or drown.

Everyone has different opinions. Personally, I have two disabled birds and a dog who can't swim. No chance would I be leaving them behind to die. The others might have a chance, since Zac can swim and two birds are fully flighted but in an emergency, I know who i would be grabbing and i wouldn't leave unless i knew they were safe.

[LizT]

Although I dearly love my animals and in a pre-organised evaculation there is time to make arrangements for our pets I do believe that human life is of much more importance and if it's a sudden emergency one should be realistic and understand that it may be necesary to leave the animals behind. My first thought would be to get my family safely out of danger.

There is no point in heroics if you are all going to burn or drown.

Everyone has different opinions. Personally, I have two disabled birds and a dog who can't swim. No chance would I be leaving them behind to die. The others might have a chance, since Zac can swim and two birds are fully flighted but in an emergency, I know who i would be grabbing and i wouldn't leave unless i knew they were safe.

As I say, If it were only myself I had to be responsible for I would probably try to stay with my animals. Also if I had pre-warning of an inpending disaster I would also try to take my animals.

On the Black Saturday bush fires I took all rugs off my horses and moved them into a paddock that had no grass. They stood a better chance there than stuck in a horse float on a bottle neck road with panicked people. Many people perished in their cars that day. We stayed home and fortunately we were okay, nearby fires were controlled and embers delt with.

We all end up having to make decisions on a case by case basis. The truth is it is easier to talk about what we would do in 'such and such' a case. If you are actually facing death you may find you don't have time to change your mind.

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

LizT, that's why my essentials are already packed and ready to go.

I've lived in cyclone areas, bushfire areas, and flood areas. I lived through two cyclones, many bushfires including the Canberra fires that destroyed over 500 homes, and a number of severe storms including the latest floods in QLD.

The cyclones - were thankfully only Cat 1 & 2. I was packed and ready to head south if needed but had prepared my home to remain and shelter there. The bushfires I was packed and ready to head out of the area and had prepared the house to withstand a fire as much as anyone can prepare. Same with the floods this month.

During the cyclone watch period, instructions are given as to evac procedures. None of the public shelters in Darwin accepted pets except the underground car park at the local shopping centre, which is prone to flooding. Therefore I either had to evac further south and risk being cut off from returning home for days and possibly weeks, or to remain at home and weather the storm. I chose to remain at home and it was an educated and well-thought-out decision.

The Canberra fires will haunt me for the rest of my life. I had friends lose everything except their dogs, cats and horses. There was little time to get out when the original fires hit but enough warning once the first wave had happened, because everyone was on extremely high alert after that.

My dogs are my family. There's no question that I wouldn't save them or die trying.

We are all entitled to our opinion and it's an emotive issue.

The bottom line is that for many people whose pets are their entire family, if the evac centres would agree to take pets, people would evac and early rather than waiting and hoping the emergency/disaster wouldn't affect their home or waiting/hoping for rescue that would take their pets.

Edited January 17, 2011 by lillysmum

[LizT]

LizT, that's why my essentials are already packed and ready to go.

I've lived in cyclone areas, bushfire areas, and flood areas. I lived through two cyclones, many bushfires including the Canberra fires that destroyed over 500 homes, and a number of severe storms including the latest floods in QLD.

The cyclones - were thankfully only Cat 1 & 2. I was packed and ready to head south if needed but had prepared my home to remain and shelter there. The bushfires I was packed and ready to head out of the area and had prepared the house to withstand a fire as much as anyone can prepare. Same with the floods this month.

During the cyclone watch period, instructions are given as to evac procedures. None of the public shelters in Darwin accepted pets except the underground car park at the local shopping centre, which is prone to flooding. Therefore I either had to evac further south and risk being cut off from returning home for days and possibly weeks, or to remain at home and weather the storm. I chose to remain at home and it was an educated and well-thought-out decision.

The Canberra fires will haunt me for the rest of my life. I had friends lose everything except their dogs, cats and horses. There was little time to get out when the original fires hit but enough warning once the first wave had happened, because everyone was on extremely high alert after that.

My dogs are my family. There's no question that I wouldn't save them or die trying.

We are all entitled to our opinion and it's an emotive issue.

The bottom line is that for many people whose pets are their entire family, if the evac centres would agree to take pets, people would evac and early rather than waiting and hoping the emergency/disaster wouldn't affect their home or waiting/hoping for rescue that would take their pets.

I agree. And I'm not saying I would leave my dogs (or cats either) There are enough crates, carriers etc. Vans, cars utes (5 between us now!) I'm just saying that one could be faced with a on the spot, make a decision, get out or die situation. There just simple may not be time. Not all disasters are predictable. I fully agree that evacuation centres should take pets.

I think it would be great for morale.

I had friends who lost pets too. The CFA came to assist as their house burnt, the dogs (GSD's) were in a yard near the house so Granma let them out, they took fright of the Fire Trucks ran into the bush and their bodies were found later.

I believe everyone should have some kind of "disaster plan", bottled water, non perishable foods, candles , batteries Radio etc. on hand. Especially City People (well some I know anyway) who think they are immume to such things and that they are safe. A city can be a very dangerous place in the case of fire, flood or earthquake. Melbourne has a green belt of Eucalypts that would burn for days from the suburbs right up to the city. This was a major fear of the fires getting out of control on Black Saturday and turning towards Warrandyte and Eltham. I think we will see more 'offical' evaculation centres pop up in the future.

[Dxenion]

I wonder if the government has looked at these: http://www.puppyparadise.com/store/evac-muzzle-p-34.html

Obviously it doesn't solve problems associated with other species but if your dog is wearing a muzzle such as this it would prevent it from be able to bite, it's very visual (and therefore more reassuring for other people) and should overcome some OH&S concerns which would then allow helicopter and other rescue crews to take the dog as well.

The US seems to be more forward thinking on pet evacuations than we do here.

Edited - spelling

Edited January 17, 2011 by Dxenion

[LizT]

I wonder if the government has looked at these: http://www.puppyparadise.com/store/evac-muzzle-p-34.html

Obviously it doesn't solve problems associated with other species but if your dog is wearing a muzzle such as this it would prevent it from be able to bite, it's very visual (and therefore more reassuring for other people) and should overcome some OH&S concerns which would then allow helicopter and other rescue crews to take the dog as well.

The US seems to be more forward thinking on pet evacuations than we do here.

Edited - spelling

What a great idea!

The other problem is dogs can panic in a helicoptor evac situation. Many Rescue type helicoptors will have open sides and a dog could jump or even cause an owner who is trying to stop it or settle it to fall or be knocked out. Then there is the case of added weight. What if the person has four hefty breed dogs? In an emergency situation there could be a couple up the road who could be rescued in this very same trip sans the neighbors dogs. But these muzzles could have applications keeping the peace if various 'stranger' dogs needed to be kept together for a period of time at a Evac Centre.

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

Yes, and if the dogs were crated before being loaded to a chopper, that would reduce the risk further. :D

I've got crates for my dogs.

Ruby has an airline crate and a folding wire crate.

Molly has an airline crate.

Lilly has a giant folding wire crate which I use at home from time to time, and I've ordered a soft crate for her which is much lighter and easier to transport. In a pinch, I could get all three dogs into the soft crate in an emergency situation and they'd be safe together.

The main reason I've got crates for emergencies is that some hotels etc will take dogs if you can reassure the property owner's on the dog's good behaviour. It's pretty difficult to argue against crated dogs IME. Also, if you have dog's sleeping/containment arrangements sorted, you can get space in places like vet clinics outside of the emergency zones. And apart from all that, a crated dog is safe from many dangers associated with disasters such as the dog being panicked and escaping the handler's control.

I hope it's a long time before I see another disaster...I've just about had my share I think.

[LizT]

Yes, and if the dogs were crated before being loaded to a chopper, that would reduce the risk further.

I've got crates for my dogs.

Ruby has an airline crate and a folding wire crate.

Molly has an airline crate.

Lilly has a giant folding wire crate which I use at home from time to time, and I've ordered a soft crate for her which is much lighter and easier to transport. In a pinch, I could get all three dogs into the soft crate in an emergency situation and they'd be safe together.

The main reason I've got crates for emergencies is that some hotels etc will take dogs if you can reassure the property owner's on the dog's good behaviour. It's pretty difficult to argue against crated dogs IME. Also, if you have dog's sleeping/containment arrangements sorted, you can get space in places like vet clinics outside of the emergency zones. And apart from all that, a crated dog is safe from many dangers associated with disasters such as the dog being panicked and escaping the handler's control.

I hope it's a long time before I see another disaster...I've just about had my share I think.

I think I'll extend that wish to everyone

[Clyde]

Choppers can only carry so much. In a mass rescue it is unreasonable to expect your pets to be rescued over human life further down the road. I absolutely agree with LizT. I would do all in my power to safe my pets but not at the cost of any human life.

[WoofnHoof]

Choppers can only carry so much. In a mass rescue it is unreasonable to expect your pets to be rescued over human life further down the road. I absolutely agree with LizT. I would do all in my power to safe my pets but not at the cost of any human life.

It's not just about the choppers though, it's also about evac centres being able to allow pets which would allow people with pets to get themselves out early, not everyone will have someone that can look after all their animals for them. The Brissie evac centre initially wouldn't allow animals even though there are horse stables and chook sheds there (the show grounds) it's not like people were going to be sleeping in the stables or the chook shed anyway so there is absolutely no reason they couldnt be utilized for pet owners who I'm sure would sleep in a stable if it meant having their pet with them.

There are a lot of reasons why Australias evacuation plans should incorporate measures for ensuring pet owners can take their pets, the research shows that it actually saves more human lives because there are less delays and emergency personell aren't risking their lives trying to save people who are trying to save their pets when they could have gotten out much earlier. There will always be people who leave it too late or circumstances where there is no warning but in the vast majority of cases people will take extra risks if they aren't supported in their efforts to save their pets. This was seen after hurricane Katrina when many people went back into the ruins to look for their pets before it had been declared safe, and human lives were lost.

[LizT]

Choppers can only carry so much. In a mass rescue it is unreasonable to expect your pets to be rescued over human life further down the road. I absolutely agree with LizT. I would do all in my power to safe my pets but not at the cost of any human life.

It's not just about the choppers though, it's also about evac centres being able to allow pets which would allow people with pets to get themselves out early, not everyone will have someone that can look after all their animals for them. The Brissie evac centre initially wouldn't allow animals even though there are horse stables and chook sheds there (the show grounds) it's not like people were going to be sleeping in the stables or the chook shed anyway so there is absolutely no reason they couldnt be utilized for pet owners who I'm sure would sleep in a stable if it meant having their pet with them.

There are a lot of reasons why Australias evacuation plans should incorporate measures for ensuring pet owners can take their pets, the research shows that it actually saves more human lives because there are less delays and emergency personell aren't risking their lives trying to save people who are trying to save their pets when they could have gotten out much earlier. There will always be people who leave it too late or circumstances where there is no warning but in the vast majority of cases people will take extra risks if they aren't supported in their efforts to save their pets. This was seen after hurricane Katrina when many people went back into the ruins to look for their pets before it had been declared safe, and human lives were lost.

Yes, this is true and this is what should happen in the event of a "controlled and predicted evacuation". People need their "family" around them and Pets are their family of sorts.

I was just highlighting the difficulties faced in a non-predicted emergency such as bushfires (some arsonists really know how to pick their days!) or earthquake.

The old adage of "Women and children first" still applies in an evac situation. First the sick, the elderly and the children, then women and abled bodies men last. Sadly pets don't enter into a TRUE emergency. Tuck a puppy or kitten in your jacket if you're lucky!

But certainly, I agree, where possible, pets should be accomodated in an evac. Centre. Although truth be told it's a mammoth task just feeding the people. There could also be some resentment about space "needlessly" (in their eyes) being wasted on pets. Also many 'culture' now living in this country do not believe in sharing space with dogs...but that is a whole different topic.

As stated....an emotive situation.

[centitout]

Choppers can only carry so much. In a mass rescue it is unreasonable to expect your pets to be rescued over human life further down the road. I absolutely agree with LizT. I would do all in my power to safe my pets but not at the cost of any human life.

Same here,my family and any human life will always come first,as much as i love my animals and it would nearly kill me to leave them.If i was a chopper pilot,i am sorry ,but i couldnt justify loading a heap of crated animals,and then leaving people to perish ,or flying over people desperately trying to survive and not being able to help them because i was full with pets.Sorry if thats callous.

I agree though that pets should be catered for at evac centres.

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

Choppers can only carry so much. In a mass rescue it is unreasonable to expect your pets to be rescued over human life further down the road. I absolutely agree with LizT. I would do all in my power to safe my pets but not at the cost of any human life.

It's not just about the choppers though, it's also about evac centres being able to allow pets which would allow people with pets to get themselves out early, not everyone will have someone that can look after all their animals for them. The Brissie evac centre initially wouldn't allow animals even though there are horse stables and chook sheds there (the show grounds) it's not like people were going to be sleeping in the stables or the chook shed anyway so there is absolutely no reason they couldnt be utilized for pet owners who I'm sure would sleep in a stable if it meant having their pet with them.

There are a lot of reasons why Australias evacuation plans should incorporate measures for ensuring pet owners can take their pets, the research shows that it actually saves more human lives because there are less delays and emergency personell aren't risking their lives trying to save people who are trying to save their pets when they could have gotten out much earlier. There will always be people who leave it too late or circumstances where there is no warning but in the vast majority of cases people will take extra risks if they aren't supported in their efforts to save their pets. This was seen after hurricane Katrina when many people went back into the ruins to look for their pets before it had been declared safe, and human lives were lost.

Yes, this is true and this is what should happen in the event of a "controlled and predicted evacuation". People need their "family" around them and Pets are their family of sorts.

LizT I have said this more than once. But it must need repeating. Some people only have pets as their family. I'm actually a little offended that, on a dog lover's forum, anyone would suggest that pets are "their family of sorts" when it's clear that a lot of us do have only dogs or other pets living with us and that in any disaster, many of us will stay with those dogs/pets rather than leave them behind if they're not welcome in evac centres.

I will evac early IF my dogs are welcome at the evac centres and if I can crate them, which I can, what possible reason could anyone have to not allowing me to spend my time in the evac centre right next to them even if that meant I slept in a stable or chicken shed? I'm providing their food so I'm not taking food away from people.

Alternatively, when it's an emergency situation and there's nowhere else to go such as all roads being cut by flood or fire, if my dogs can't come with me then I will remain with them. It would destroy me to leave them behind in the same way that some parents would feel if they were forced into leaving their children behind. No, I'm not saying my dogs are children, either. What I am saying is that my dogs are of no less importance to me than someone else's children are of importance to them.

Does that help?

[LizT]

Choppers can only carry so much. In a mass rescue it is unreasonable to expect your pets to be rescued over human life further down the road. I absolutely agree with LizT. I would do all in my power to safe my pets but not at the cost of any human life.

It's not just about the choppers though, it's also about evac centres being able to allow pets which would allow people with pets to get themselves out early, not everyone will have someone that can look after all their animals for them. The Brissie evac centre initially wouldn't allow animals even though there are horse stables and chook sheds there (the show grounds) it's not like people were going to be sleeping in the stables or the chook shed anyway so there is absolutely no reason they couldnt be utilized for pet owners who I'm sure would sleep in a stable if it meant having their pet with them.

There are a lot of reasons why Australias evacuation plans should incorporate measures for ensuring pet owners can take their pets, the research shows that it actually saves more human lives because there are less delays and emergency personell aren't risking their lives trying to save people who are trying to save their pets when they could have gotten out much earlier. There will always be people who leave it too late or circumstances where there is no warning but in the vast majority of cases people will take extra risks if they aren't supported in their efforts to save their pets. This was seen after hurricane Katrina when many people went back into the ruins to look for their pets before it had been declared safe, and human lives were lost.

Yes, this is true and this is what should happen in the event of a "controlled and predicted evacuation". People need their "family" around them and Pets are their family of sorts.

LizT I have said this more than once. But it must need repeating. Some people only have pets as their family. I'm actually a little offended that, on a dog lover's forum, anyone would suggest that pets are "their family of sorts" when it's clear that a lot of us do have only dogs or other pets living with us and that in any disaster, many of us will stay with those dogs/pets rather than leave them behind if they're not welcome in evac centres.

I will evac early IF my dogs are welcome at the evac centres and if I can crate them, which I can, what possible reason could anyone have to not allowing me to spend my time in the evac centre right next to them even if that meant I slept in a stable or chicken shed? I'm providing their food so I'm not taking food away from people.

Alternatively, when it's an emergency situation and there's nowhere else to go such as all roads being cut by flood or fire, if my dogs can't come with me then I will remain with them. It would destroy me to leave them behind in the same way that some parents would feel if they were forced into leaving their children behind. No, I'm not saying my dogs are children, either. What I am saying is that my dogs are of no less importance to me than someone else's children are of importance to them.

Does that help?

Yes, I can fully 'see' the level of connection you have for your dogs. I hope that you (and all DOLers) are never put in a situation that requires any of the afore mentioned scenarios.

Also as previously stated, when faced with a possible bushfire evacuation in 2009, I had crates, food, water etc. should it had become necessary to evacuate for our 3 dogs and three cats. (along with baby photo albums, important documents etc and provisions for us ALL ready to go.) There was never a question of evacuating without them, given time.