From a letter to the editor of The Arizona Republic newspaper:
"Regarding the front-page story Tuesday on the dog custody case, "Dogfight is raging over Katrina victim":
If the judge was correct to award the dog to his original owners, it is because our laws regard animals as property, not as conscious entities. If you can prove ownership of a dog, like a piece of furniture, it is yours.
In my opinion, anyone who abandons a companion animal in a disaster should have no grounds to reclaim the animal if it is rescued by a third party. Dogs are not furniture, sorry.
I think this should have been treated more like a child-custody situation rather than a furniture situation. If one party has a history of abandoning the child in a crisis, custody would probably be awarded to the other party. - Bill Schramm, Tempe"
Link info: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0318sunlets187.html
This letter is in reference to a news story the paper ran on March 13, 2007 regarding Paula Duming of Louisiana and her dog, Pablo, which she was forced to leave behind when she was evacuated from her mobile home following Katrina. The dog was picked up and eventually transferred to a shelter in Phoenix, AZ and then placed with a new family in Scottsdale, AZ. The adoptive family argues that they would have been more than happy to return the dog to Ms. Duming originally -- but that she did not respond to an offer to 'visit' her dog in Arizona four months after Hurricane Katrina... And further, Pablo didn't seem to 'know' her when she finally did make the trip last month.
I would like everyone to now take a deep breath and think hard about what happened here. These animals were 'rescued' from homes and porches and backyards in Mississippi and Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. There were no efforts during these 'rescues' to locate the actual owners -- instead they were shipped all over the country and put up for adoption! I truly appreciate the idea behind the animal rescues - particularly in flooded areas of New Orleans... However - many animals were 'rescued' in areas where their lives were not in immediate danger. One of my fears during the aftermath of Katrina was that our puppy would be picked up by a 'rescue group' from our front yard if I turned my back. Our fences were destroyed... in our case even our doors did not close... In some cases entire houses were gone... It was next to impossible to keep our pets contained for several days. They didn't need that kind of rescuing. We didn't need people to find new families for them. We needed people to help us find them. I suppose I am to assume that my kitten wasn't 'stolen' -- only 'rescued'.
As for Pablo's adoptive family -- they really believe it was reasonable to ask the disabled lady from Lafayette who had just lost everything in the hurricane to come on out to Arizona to visit with the dog... and then reasonable to assume that because she did not make the trip she did not care? And it's also reasonable to assume because your puppy doesn't seem to recognize you after 18 months of separation that this proves something? This is craziness. Why didn't this benevolent pair make the trip to Lafayette four months after the storm to return the dog as soon as they discovered she was looking for him? Oh that's right.. because these folks care more about the welfare of the dog than the welfare of their fellow human beings.
And here we have a comment from a reader in Tempe, AZ arguing that these people 'abandoned' the dog and thereby proved they were not well-suited to own the dog. Did this person never read a single news article about people being forced out of their homes without their animals? Did he not read a single article criticizing droves of folks all along the Gulf Coast for staying behind because they didn't want to 'abandon' their pets? Did he miss the part in the article where it states that this lady had a picture of her dog on the roof -- meaning she stayed behind with Pablo... and was only forced to leave him when she was rescued? Hmmm.. maybe she should have stayed behind and starved to death or drowned.... Then those folks in Arizona would never have had to fight this nasty legal battle!
Apparently we hapless hurricane victims can do absolutely nothing right. I am wrong to accept assistance to rebuild my life - because I am wrong to live here in the first place. I am wrong to stay behind and ride out the hurricane, but I am wrong if I evacuate and 'abandon' my property. I am wrong to stay behind because I have no where to go that will accept my pets - I am wrong to leave them behind. I am wrong to refuse to leave the rooftop of my house when the National Guard says I have to leave my pets behind -- I am wrong to get in the boat.
I have to agree with the commenter on the point of pets still being regarded as 'property' under most state laws, however. It is exactly this mindset that prevents us from being able to take them with us to evacuation shelters... and exactly this mindset which meant they would not be allowed to take the boat rides out of flooded homes with their owners. If Pablo had been treated as a family member (I think 'child' is stretching it) rather than 'furniture' from the very beginning of this fiasco - by civil defense, city officials, state legislators, and the rescue teams with the air boats - then Ms. Duming and Pablo would not have been separated in the first place.
UPDATE: After some serious web-browsing this afternoon - I found an organization called Stealth Volunteers. They're working really, really hard to reunite Katrina victims with their lost furry family members. Website here: Stealth
It was really comforting for me to run across this website. I can only imagine how horrible it would have been to add the loss of our beloved Judge to our laundry-list of losses.... And even more horrible to find ourselves being judged as
bad pet owners for losing him in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment