|
|
|
THE
PUBLIC AND ANIMAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF
PET OWNERSHIP IN DISASTERS Introduction In
two epidemiological studies of evacuations from disaster, risk factors for
household evacuation failure, pet evacuation failure, and pet rescue attempts
were characterized. Risk factors
were identified using multivariate logistic regression. Case households were
defined as those which either failed to evacuate as a unit, evacuated but
without their pets (dogs or cats), or evacuated without their pets and later
attempted to rescue their pet. Control households were those that either
evacuated as a unit, evacuated with their pet, or evacuated and did not attempt
to rescue their pet. Weyauwega, Wisconsin:
Train derailment and chemical spill
On March 4, 1996, at 5:50 a.m.,
35 cars from a train derailed in the immediate proximity of Weyauwega,
Wisconsin. Several of the 15 cars carrying propane caught fire. All residents
were instructed to evacuate because of the concern of a major explosion at 7:30 a.m.
In the first few days after the derailment many residents expressed
concern about the well-being of pets that had not been evacuated, and several
illegally reentered the evacuation zone to rescue pets. Personnel at the
Emergency Operations Center organized an official pet rescue on March 8 to
reduce these security risks. In
February 1997, a self-administered questionnaire was mailed to pet-owning
households of Weyauwega, to which 241 pet-owning households responded.
Residents in Yuba County, California, were issued a voluntary evacuation
notice on the morning of January 1, 1997, because of flooding. The next day a
levee broke a mandatory evacuation order was issued that remained in effect for
2 days and resulted in the evacuation of an estimated 64,000 people. A
population survey of 863 households was conducted in July, 1997, using a random
digit dial telephone survey. Three hundred and ninety seven households were
interviewed in detail. Results Household
evacuation The
comparison among households that evacuated and those that did not was only
possible for the evacuation from the flood, because all households evacuated
from the train derailment. Of
the 397 households surveyed in Yuba County, there were no statistically
significant differences between the proportion of households with or without
children, seniors, or pets that evacuated in the voluntary versus mandatory
evacuation periods. On
average 19.4 % of all households failed to evacuate. 20.9% of households with
pets, and 16.3% of households without pets failed to evacuate. The likelihood of
household evacuation failure increased approximately 30% for every additional
dog or cat owned, and household evacuation failure was significantly lower in
households with children. Stratification of pet-owning households on whether
they also had children or not indicated that the risk of household evacuation
failure doubled for every additional dog or cat owned in households without
children, and that households with children were consistently most likely to
evacuate independent of the number of pets owned. In
both evacuations >90% pet-owning households stayed with friends or family,
and some stayed at motels. Most evacuated pets (>82%) stayed at the same
location as their owners, whereas only few pets stayed with friends or family,
but at a different location (7 - 18%), or were boarded at a kennel (3 – 10%). Pet (dog or cat)
evacuation In
Weyauwega 50.6% of households did not initially evacuate their pets, and 10.0%
neither evacuated or rescued then. In Yuba County 22.2% pet-owning households
did not initially evacuate their pets and 16.7% neither evacuated or rescued
them. The most common reasons given for failing to evacuate a pet were the
owners did not think they would be gone for long (70 – 97%), the owners
thought the pet would be safe (~90%). Fewer than 20% of households did not
evacuate their pets because they did not know where to take the pet. In both
disasters the risk of pet evacuation failure increased significantly with lower
combined attachment and commitment score quartiles, i.e., households with a weak
human-animal bond were more likely not to evacuate their pets. In
both studies dogs that lived outdoors were less likely to be evacuated. However,
households with multiple dogs were more likely to evacuate their dogs. Cats
were 2 – 4 times less likely to be evacuated than dogs. In both studies owners
who did not feel prepared and did have carriers for their cats were less likely
to evacuate their cats. However, in cat-owing households that also owned dogs
the risk for cat evacuation failure was significantly decreased. Pet
rescue More
than 80% of persons who re-entered the evacuated areas in either disaster did so
to rescue their pet. In Weyauwega and Yuba County approximately 80% and 40% of
pet-owning households, respectively, that evacuated without their pets returned
later to rescue them. Over 60% of households that attempted to rescue pets
thought it was appropriate to risk human lives in the process. Pet attachment
and commitment scores were not indicative of whether an owner would attempt to
rescue their pet. Discussion Household
evacuation failure Owning
pets appeared to be the most significant reason why households without children
failed to evacuate. For every additional dog or cat owned, such households were
nearly twice as likely to fail to evacuate compared with pet-owning households
with children. In these childless households, pet owners were apparently willing
to jeopardize their lives to stay with their pet(s). Based
on the high prevalence of dog and cat ownership in the US, if all pets could be
evacuated from disasters, the evacuation rate of pet owning households could be
increased by up to 20%. Therefore, programs intended to improve public and
animal safety in disasters should encourage and facilitate pet evacuation at the
time of evacuation. In this study there was an increased risk of evacuation failure in households with seniors, but this association was not statistically significant. Pet
evacuation failure In
this study pet evacuation failure was shown to be the most important potential
threat to the safety of pets in disasters, although only a few pets died in
these evacuations. Apparently, households that act responsibly towards pets in
general also act responsibly in disasters, as reflected by the positive
association between a higher level of pet care and household evacuation. For
example, a lower risk of evacuation failure was associated with the following
indicators of a higher level of pet care: dogs that lived indoors or were
licensed, cats that had carriers or had visited a veterinarian, and dogs and
cats that required special feed or medication. In
Weyauwega and Yuba County 50.6% and 22.2% of pets, respectively, were not
evacuated, thereby threatening the safety of a large number of pets. Differences
in the rates of pet evacuation likely reflect differences in the time owners had
to prepare for the evacuation and the time of day at which the evacuation took
place. Hence, early notice of the need to evacuate may facilitate pet
evacuation. Attempts
to rescue a pet was the most common reason why persons attempted to re-enter the
evacuated areas. Although in neither of these evacuations were persons who
re-entered the area killed or injured, the potential for these adverse outcomes
is great. Pet rescue attempts are best prevented by evacuating pets. Households
that attempted to rescue pets were best characterized by having children and
owning a larger number of dogs or cats than households that did not attempt to
rescue a pet. Households that rescued their pet(s) were also more likely to
perceive the threat of the disaster to be low and to have been given no
instructions on evacuating pets. Low
pet attachment and commitment scores were predictive of pet evacuation failure.
A weak human-animal bond was also associated with pet management practices prior
to the disasters, including dogs being kept outdoors or owners having no
carriers for cats, are predictors of pet evacuation failure. Therefore, pet
owners who have a strong bond to their pets provide high standards of care for
their pets at all times, not just in disasters. Pet
abandonment The
high frequency of pet evacuation failure in this study is consistent with other
disasters. Therefore, pet evacuation failure appears to be a common problem in
disasters and in most cases is probably not related just to owner absenteeism or
the amount of warning time. The
proportion of dogs and cats that were neither evacuated nor rescued was similar
to the annual turnover rate of dogs (14%) and cats (18%) in another community in
the US, and the proportion of abandoned pets admitted to humane shelters where
there had been extensive damage to homes in a disaster. This similarity
indicates that owners who neither evacuated nor rescued their pets in the two
disasters studied was the same sub population of owners who are likely to
abandon or relinquish their pets in non-disaster times. Disasters may simply
accelerate the process of pet abandonment in this group. Logistical challenges
to animal evacuation Dogs
kept outdoors were at higher risk of evacuation failure. Outdoor dogs that were
not evacuated were kept outdoors most of the time, and not just during the
evacuation. This finding may help dispel the myth that owners deliberately tie
their dogs outside before the owners evacuate. The
likelihood of cat evacuation failure increased in households having no
evacuation plans that included pets and for households without cat carriers.
Evacuation failure was 2 - 4 times as likely for cats as for dogs. The higher
incidence of evacuation failure of cats than dogs may reflect greater
difficulties in catching cats than dogs and the belief of some owners that cats
are able to fend for themselves if left behind. Often dog evacuation involves
simply calling the dog into the car, whereas a cat has to be caught and
physically restrained. Owner understanding
of the need to evacuate animals The
most common reason given for not evacuating dogs and cats was that owners
thought they would not be gone long. However, if the environment is dangerous
for humans as indicated by the mandatory evacuation, then it must also be
dangerous for animals. Therefore, owners who did not evacuate their pets often
based their decision on the relative length of time they thought the evacuation
would last, rather than the absolute need to protect public and animal safety.
This indicates a poor understanding of why evacuations are ordered or
recommended, which could be overcome by providing a consistent and positive
message, such as “If it is not safe for people, it is not safe for animals”.
Accommodation
for pets and their owners Most
households that evacuated with their pets stayed with friends and family,
similar to the situation in other disasters. In both evacuations relatively few
pet owners chose to house their pets at boarding kennels. The relatively long
advance warning time in Yuba County may have also encouraged self-reliance among
pet owners and allowed them to make arrangements with friends and family at no
charge. Therefore, self-reliance appears to be increased by providing as much
advance notice of the need to evacuate as possible. The
major obstacles to evacuating pets appear to be logistical resulting from an
inability to transport pets. Only few pet owners were concerned that they could
not find accommodation for themselves and their pets. Conclusions Household
evacuation failure, pet evacuation failure and attempts to rescue a pet appear
to be common concerns arising in disasters, and all are related to pet
evacuation failure. Significant impediments to pet evacuation included owning
multiple pets, owning outdoor dogs, or not having a cat carrier. Pre-disaster
planning should, therefore, place a high priority on facilitating pet
evacuation. Improving
pet evacuation is best addressed in non-disaster times. Animal care providers
should think of responsible pet ownership as the foundation upon which to
improve pet owner and animal safety in disasters. Mitigation of pet evacuation
failure should focus on activities that encourage responsible pet ownership and
strengthen the human-animal bond. Specific activities that would nurture these
values include seeking regular preventive veterinary care, socializing dogs,
attending dog behavior training classes, and transporting cats in non-disaster
times. Veterinary practices, humane shelters, and boarding and grooming
facilities, should promote pet evacuation as part their of educational programs
to encourage responsible pet ownership. Recommendations to improve disaster
preparedness should include having carriers for cats, and leashes or in some
cases cages for dogs. Many animal health professional can provide these supplies
and have the necessary expertise to ensure the safe evacuation of both animals
and people. References 1.
Heath SE, Beck AM, Kass PH, Glickman LT. Risk factors for pet evacuation
failure in a slow onset disaster. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001; 218(12):pp. 2.
Heath SE, Beck AM, Kass PH, Glickman LT. Human and pet related risk
factors for household evacuation failure during a natural disaster. Am J
Epidemiol. 2001; 153(7):659-665. 3.
Heath SE, Voeks S, Glickman LT. Epidemiologic features of pet evacuation
failure in a rapid onset disaster. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001; 218(12):pp. 4. Heath SE, Voeks S. A study of pet rescue in two disasters. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters. 2000; 18(3): 361-381. |
The information on the Animal Management in Disasters web site is proprietary.
|