Considerations for the housing of pets in disasters

There has been considerable discussion over the need to house pets in large scale disasters. Part of the argument has been the public sentiment that pets are part of the family and should be treated as such in mass care facilities for humans after disasters. The issue is not quite that simple. The major issues that need to be clarified before providing housing for pets in large scale disasters are:

• Is public health improved by offering to house pets?

• Is animal health improved by offering to house pets?

• Is it cost effective to offer housing of pets?

Based on these principles guidelines for accepting and operating pet-friendly community shelters can be developed.

Back to top

There are two ways in which public health many be improved by offering housing of pets. At this point in time the degree to which these factors may be effective at improving public health is theoretical. First, offering pet housing to the public may encourage more people to evacuate. However, in a study on human evacuation failure conducted at Purdue University only 7% of pet owners who failed to evacuate indicated that their primary reason for evacuation failure was because they did not want to leave their pets behind. If all of these evacuation failures could be prevented by offering housing of pets, it would constitute approximately 1-3% of all evacuees.

The second way in which pet housing may improve public health is by increasing pet evacuation, and, therefore, reducing the likelihood of pet owners trying to later rescue their pets from the disaster site. In the same study as above the rate of return of pet owners who attempted to rescue their pets was approximately 25% of persons who evacuated. This constitutes less than 10% of all persons who were ordered to evacuate. Clearly the more pets that are evacuated the fewer pet owners attempt to rescue them. However, the common reasons why people do not evacuate their dogs or cats is related primarily to owners inability to catch and transport their pets, not where they can take their pets to. Therefore, help with evacuation logistics is likely to be the most effective strategy to prevent rescue attempts of pets.

Shelters are public facilities that are governed by local and state public health regulations. Most regulations governing public shelters specify that animals (other than registered working dogs) cannot be in the same space where food is served for humans. The location of animals has to be separated by at least two solid partitions (walls) from where humans eat. Many shelters can provide this arrangement by keeping pets in the basement, a separate room, or in an outside building.

Also consideration has to be given to avoid unnecessary exposure of persons with allergies or phobias against animals. In a small study that we conducted during a Red Cross exercise we asked participants what they thought about keeping pets at shelters. Most pets owners, especially those that had more than one pet were opposed to the idea. Although this may sound surprising at first, it actually makes sense that owners know best that their animals may be intractable to other persons and animals.

Back to top

Clearly if an environment has become unsafe for humans the same applies to animals. Animal health is, therefore, improved in disasters when animals are evacuated. Again, the question arises if offering pet housing would be an effective method for improving pet evacuation rates. At the present time this is simply not known.

The care of animals in mass care facilities should also be weighed against alternative approaches for housing. Most studies on evacuation behavior, including those that have looked at where pet owners stay, show that over 80% of evacuees stay with friends and family. Therefore, most pet owners have already opted for the best solution for their pets by having made arrangements for alternative accommodation for themselves and their pets in the event of a disaster. Encouraging this type of self reliance is consistent with emergency management policy. It is possible that offering housing for pets at mass care facilities would encourage pet owners not to be so self reliant and, therefore, promote an inferior standard of care for pets than in the homes of friends and family. This would contradict current emergency management policy to encourage self reliance of disaster victims. Attempting to discriminate between disaster victims with legitimate needs and those without is not possible and would be considered by most shelter operators to be unethical.

Back to top

Given limited resources for any public or animal health policy the question on cost effectiveness of programs has to be addressed. The question is whether offering housing for pets is as cost effective as other alternatives. The best alternative is for pet owners to be self reliant in disasters, which would obliterate the need to provide care for their pets.

There are, however, circumstances in which the issue of housing pets does not have alternatives. These should be viewed as exceptions rather than as policy. Examples are overnight sheltering of evacuees from a disaster site. Under these circumstances the management of the shelters are usually ad hoc and most people leave again within a few hours to return to their homes, or stay with friends, family, and at motels. The other example would be in a blizzard where travelers rely on shelters as their only protection from the environment and cannot be turned away. Under these circumstances the owner can be charged with supervision of their pet(s). In most blizzards shelters are only likely to open for a few days and have few occupants until the roads have been cleared.

Another argument has been made in favor of pet friendly community shelters is that they would help the most vulnerable disaster victims, which are senior and low income members of society. Pet ownership is low in the senior (approximately 25%) and low income (30-40%) sectors of society when compared to the national average (over 50%). Also, although these groups are the most likely groups to request or require pet housing facilities, it is likely that these would not be the only persons who would use these services. Other pets would be brought in for housing by persons who would otherwise be self reliant in disasters, and the public would likely bring stray animals to the shelters. Stray animals make up to 80% of all animals that are dealt with by animal care groups in disasters, and it is, therefore, likely that many stray animals would be also dropped off at any facility offering housing for pets. The public does not distinguish between stray and owned animals.

The overall cost of operating a facility that offers housing of pets in disasters would likely find that their greatest expense would be for the care of stray pets and pets of owners who would have otherwise sought alternative accommodation. The cost of these services need to be addressed before a shelter is set up. At this point the cost effectiveness of a pet friendly community shelter can only be speculated on, but I suspect that for every pet and owner that truly needs additional help to house their pets another 5 - 20 others would request the same services. Because of the likely very small number of persons that would truly need help to house their pets, it is likely to be most cost effective to have alternative resources on hand where persons in need can be referred to. The American Red Cross Family Assistance program is a good example how this could operate. Here registered disaster victims are given vouchers for groceries, furniture, clothes and temporary rental accommodation, and are referred to community resources where they can receive these and other forms of help.

Back to top

Guidelines for operating pet friendly community shelters

• Humans are sheltered at public shelters; pets are housed at community shelters.

• Shelters should meet public health regulation and shelter operator guidelines.
• The care of animals at shelters should meet the standards for other animal care facilities in the community
• A written agreement with the local Department of Animal Control should be in place that Animal Control will take care of all stray animals
• A licensed professional animal health care provider (veterinary technician or veterinarian) should supervise the housing of pets
• The owner of the community shelter should consent in writing that pets are allowed in and where the pets are to be housed.
• The cost of housing pets at a community shelter should be addressed before the shelter is set up
• Only pets that are accompanied by their owners at all times should be admitted
• Owners who stay at shelters with their pets should sign a document that they will follow the recommendations of the animal care supervisor
• Owners unwilling to adhere to the standards of the shelter operators should be asked to leave by referring them to other facilities where they can pay for the services they request
• No strays (any animals without its owner present) should be admitted. These should immediately be referred to Animal Control
• Only basic first aid should be provided to pets housed at the shelter

• Sick animals should be referred to a veterinary practice

Back to top

The information on the Animal Management in Disasters web site is proprietary.
For problems or questions regarding this web contact heath@animaldisasters.com.
Last updated: September 23, 2005.