Hurricane Katrina pets: Whose are they?

[BunnyJas]

Well the fun of Katrina continues:

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/07/12/Worldandnation/To_get_past_disaster_.shtml

This family had to leave their pets behind in when they evacuated fromt the storm. Afterwards, they looked for their two dogs at many shelters they finally learned that they the dogs had each been adopted out. The people that have the dogs now are refusing to give them back to their original owners. The family is now filing a lawsuit against the new owners to get their dogs back.

This sort of thing is happening to a lot of families from New Orleans. Personally, I think that the pets should be returned to their original owners. It's very selfish to keep a beloved pet from someone that has already lost so much. The new owners need to understand that many of these people did not willingly leave their pets- many shelters and hotels would not allow them to bring animals with them. Sometimes when people were being rescued by boats, they were told to leave their animals because there wasn't enough room for them. Although the new owners have undoubtably fallen in love with the animal, they need to understand that the original owner loved the animal too (and first) and did not willingly put them up for adoption.

[Bella_Vixen]

I wholeheartedly agree, BunnyJas.

[Banrion]

While morally and ethically I whole heartedly agree that the original owner should get their pets back, this post made me think. You see, my b/f and I adopted a cat from the MSPCA on September 3, 2005. Right after Katrina hit. If someone contacted me now and said "Hey, that's my cat. Give it back!" I'm not so sure I would be willing to part with my baby either.

It has been a whole year now, and regardless of whether or not they wanted to leave the animal behind, they had every opportunity to make sure the animal and owners were identified prior to leaving them. Something as simple as a rope through a plastic bag with all pertinent information around the animal's neck would have been enough to ensure your animal got back to you. (and that's assuming that you did not have your animal properly collared and tagged in the first place) All of my animals have microchips so that no matter where they get lost they will come back to me.

In a year, we have already made a substantial financial investment into our cat as well as emotional. She had some health issues when we adopted her, she hadn't been spayed, we have now gotten her shots twice.

I think that if someone did randomly try to claim my cat from me, they would have to have some indisputable proof that my cat is in fact their cat, and they would have to be willing to pay all the vet bills she's had for the last year. If they can't afford to pay the bill, then they are not in any position to be taking on the responsibility of an animal, and it's time to let them go.

I am lucky that I know that this will never happen, as the cat I adopted had been at the shelter since May, and she was an abuse seizure.

[LostMyMind]

That case is a little unique. The pets that were adopted were not abandon. The shelters were notified that those pets are not abandon. The shelters screwed up and let those pets become adopted. The first owners had to leave the pets behind because the FEMA housing that they were assigned to didn't allow pets. Now they're out of FEMA housing and they want their pets back. The shelter screwed up big time here, instead of backing up the first family. They decided to circle the legal wagons that say they did everything right.

The second family should turn the pets over but trying to claim the pets were abused so the first family forfeited their pets. IMHO the second family are just being :censored: about it. In any case, it's now in court. The first family will probably win because they didn't abandon or give up ownership.

[XCashier]

This reminds me of a post from a previous CS incarnation, about a handicapped man who couldn't keep his helper dog with him when he was evacuated due to Hurricane Katrina. Then the woman who took in the dog refused to give him back.

Here's the link: http://kctv5.com/Global/category.asp?C=70755

[Seanette]

In all the yelling back and forth about the "rights" of the humans involved, I'm not seeing any thought given to what's actually best for the animal involved. These animals have already been badly traumatized. I can't help thinking how bad it's going to be for the animal to get uprooted yet again just to satisfy the humans' "entitlement".

[Myra]

This reminds me of a post from a previous CS incarnation, about a handicapped man who couldn't keep his helper dog with him when he was evacuated due to Hurricane Katrina. Then the woman who took in the dog refused to give him back.

Here's the link: http://kctv5.com/Global/category.asp?C=70755
Yeah at first I felt for the guy. Then turns out he really didn't need to give up his dog, he just had remorse about giving him away, or something to that effect. Don't remember exactly, if someone else from the KC area can jog my memory?

[One-Fang]

That case is a little unique. The pets that were adopted were not abandon.
They weren't taken to a roadside and dumped, but they most certainly were abandoned. Unwillingly, I'll not deny, but the term still applies.

The hurricane was in late August. The found pets were adopted in October. Where were their owners during this time?

Understandably, there was a massive disruption to their lives, and calling around looking for their pets may not have been first on their list of priorities. But for over a month?

Was there any kind of "register your lost pet here" thing set up by local animal rescue groups, so that found animals could be checked against it?

Were the pets tagged? Would it have helped in that situation? If they weren't, why not?

It's not a black and white issue.

I think that morally the new owners should give them up. God knows the original ones have gone through enough. But I would not support any legal recourse against them. The pets are now legally and validly theirs, and as Banrion points out, not all new owners would be at all willing to part with their beloved pet nearly a year after adopting it!

The best bet is for old families who have located their re-homed pet to ask the new family very nicely if they would consider it, with the old family covering all vet bills and supplying a new puppy or kitten if wanted. If the new family says no, then the old family should get that puppy/kitten for themselves. A new life after the storm, with a new family member.

[LostMyMind]

One-Fang you're forgetting how slow FEMA moves. The first family did notify the shelter that their 2 dogs were theirs before the pet was adopted. The pets were in Florida, they weren't. This was the shelter's screwup. This is not a case of "nobody knew". They knew where their pet was, and when they went to pick up their pet. They were told the pets are gone. This "issue" has been dragging on for a while now.

[BunnyJas]

Understandably, there was a massive disruption to their lives, and calling around looking for their pets may not have been first on their list of priorities. But for over a month?

In this case, the family had no choice. They couldn't help it that the only housing that was availible to them didn't allow pets. When a disaster like this happens, it can take more than a month to get a place of your own again. As pointed out before, FEMA moves at the speed of a turtle.

Was there any kind of "register your lost pet here" thing set up by local animal rescue groups, so that found animals could be checked against it?

In this case it truly is the fault of the shelter. The first owners took their dogs there so they would have a place to stay until the owners could get back on their feet. The shelter gave them the necessary paperwork to ensure that the pets would be returned. Instead, the shelter shipped the pets off to another shelter in Florida and it took awhile for the first owners to find out where their pets had been taken. The shelters in Louisianna did this to many animals due to overcrowding, which made it difficult for some people to track down their animals. Here is a link that explains this: http://www.tbnweekly.com/content_articles/062806_pco-01.txt

Were the pets tagged? Would it have helped in that situation? If they weren't, why not?

See the answer above for this particular case. I've also heard of that some people had their pets microchipped or tagged, but the shelters still adopted the animals out. Why they didn't try to contact the original owners I don't know.

The pets are now legally and validly theirs, and as Banrion points out, not all new owners would be at all willing to part with their beloved pet nearly a year after adopting it!

Not necessarily. Most court cases are siding with the original owners. In this country, pets are still considered "property". The "Finders Keepers" law in Louisianna states that if the property has not been claimed after a three years, then the finder is allowed to keep the property. In other states the law gives the original owner one year. The time limit can be irrelevant if the original owner proves without a doubt that he has been actively searching for the pet from the time after the hurricane until he found it. I do agree that a year is a long time and I think that most people who were actively looking for their pet would have found it before then.

[LostMyMind]

As pointed out before, FEMA moves at the speed of a turtle.
You give them way too much credit there. Snail would be faster than FEMA.

[BunnyJas]

You give them way too much credit there. Snail would be faster than FEMA.

I stand corrected. ;)

[Misty]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the shelters either. They have a tough job under normal circumstances, but then to be flooded with pets whose owners had been scattered to the winds...how exactly were they supposed to track down every pet owner and contact them? We all saw first hand the chaos and confusion following the storm, which continues to this day. The shelters were faced with an impossible task, their limited resources stretched to the breaking point, only to face an endless barrage of criticsm from a bunch of armchair quarterbacks.

That goes for the Katrina victims as well. They lost everything, are faced with rebuilding their entire lives from scratch, only to be hit with "why didn't you contact the shelters earlier?" "You abandoned your pet so you don't deserve him back." That, of course, is on top of the usual crap Katrina victims have been subjected to, like "Why didn't you get out of New Orleans when the government told you to?" and so on. Honestly, these people have been through enough. Getting their pets back would bring some degree of normalcy back to their lives.

Sure the "new" owners have formed a bond with the animals, but what about the original owners? Don't you think they have a bond with their pets as well?

Sorry for the rant, it's just that Katrina is a real hot button issue for me. I'll stop now.