Katrina, pets, and luxurious priorities
Regan Sarmatiuk, Staff
One aspect of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath has left me with a very real — and somewhat uncomfortable — reminder of what it means to be a North American.
The other day, I caught a segment on CNN devoted to the rescue of abandoned pets from many of the vacated houses on the empty streets of New Orleans. It featured a story about a boy reunited with his dog, Snowball, followed by pleas from an animal rescue organization for government support.
Next, I heard about a three-quarter page PETA (People for the ethical treatment of animals) ad that ran in the Washington Post on Saturday, Sept. 10. This ad decried the fact that many hurricane victims were forced to abandon their pets while being rescued, even though FEMA procedures for handling animals had been constructed in conjunction with PETA and other similar organizations. The ad included an Oprah reference and a quote from a Columbia University professor, who asserted that it is “very distressing” for people not to know the fate of their pets, before closing with a plea to email President Bush and to give money to PETA’s Animal Emergency Fund.
Finally, I also saw some footage of the “Today” show’s Al Roker interviewing an animal behaviourist about “how to prepare for your pet’s needs in case of a disaster.” The behaviourist instructed viewers to keep an emergency evacuation kit for their non-human family members, including food, water, collapsible bowls, meds, medical records and a leash. She also instructed viewers to have “surrogate” pet parents in their neighbourhoods and an evacuation plan for their pets. Lastly, she showcased a rubber bracelet, the proceeds of which were to go towards “animals in need.”
What does all of this mean? I’m not entirely sure, but it does stand in stark contrast with some other television I have watched recently.
While channel surfing on a somewhat lazy Saturday afternoon a few weeks back, I caught about half an hour of a World Vision special. The subject was Niger, and the images were very telling. Starving children, women and men were depicted, but oddly enough, it was an image of a cow on the brink of starvation, as well as images of the skeletons of several cattle lying helter-skelter in a field, that caused me to think. Growing up in Canada, I had never laid eyes on an emaciated cow before, and the image was a disturbing indicator of just how desperate the scene in Niger is. In fact, desperate doesn’t seem to be a strong enough word to explain the abhorrent realities of the situation.
Niger, a West African country that is one of the poorest in the world, is currently facing an extreme food shortage that is affecting 2.5 million of its 12 million inhabitants, according to the UN. Despite the fact that this catastrophe was predicted by the UN well in advance, aid didn’t start pouring in until the media got on board in June, according to a Sept. 8 Reuters story. As of August 24, Reuters reported that $40 million of the $80 million called for by the UN had trickled in (according to the Boston Globe, as of Sept. 10, $350 million dollars in foreign aid had arrived for survivors of Hurricane Katrina, and a total of $1 billion had been pledged, even by some of the world’s poorest nations). The price of aid to Niger also climbed as the famine was allowed to fester, since severely malnourished children and adults require special types of food supplements and treatment to bring them back to health.
Of course, Niger isn’t alone in its extreme poverty. According to a Sept. 7 Reuters story, Kevin Watkins, the main author of the UN’s Human Development report that was released last week, said that one child in the world died from poverty every three seconds, and that 1.2 billion people subsist on less than $1 per day. The report was prepared with the purpose of assessing the progress made on the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, which, among other things, include cutting the number of people living in extreme poverty in half by 2015.
While there is some progress being made, Watkins’ report also indicated that there are 50 countries regressing on one or more of the Millennium Development Goals, and apparently, failure on the part of the world’s richest countries to persevere in meeting these goals will amount to 41 million more unnecessary deaths.
The situation is grim, to put it mildly. So, obviously, these starving and poverty-stricken people in Niger (and elsewhere) would not have the time or resources to worry about pets in a time of crisis. Livestock, maybe, but pets, no. Survival trumps all other concerns.
North Americans, on the other hand, do have time for household pets. Plenty of time. In 2004, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturer’s Association (APPMA), a non-profit trade association founded in 1958, Americans spent $34.4 billion on their pets. This number included the costs of food, non-prescription meds, toys, treats, veterinary bills and actual animal purchases. This number is no surprise, as doggie clothing boutiques, day cares, birthday parties and my personal favourite, the doggie day spa, have all become more common in recent years. It is safe to say that these extravagant “doggie amenities” are just one more indicator of skewed North American priorities.
American household pets have been anthropomorphized into lovable children and family members (just ask Al Roker), and indeed, why shouldn’t this be the case? A loyal animal unable to talk back is probably a lot less complicated to love than another human being. This loyal, affectionate bond thus makes the premature death of a household pet a naturally traumatic experience that the average pet owner would want to avoid at all costs. However, it is clear that concern over the welfare of a beloved pet during a time of crisis is a luxury that is enjoyed primarily by the richest of the rich on a global scale.
Am I advocating for the abandonment of household pets? No. Am I attempting to trivialize the very real grief that many unfortunate victims of Katrina have suffered over the loss of beloved pets, or even the suffering experienced by the pets in question? Most certainly not. I am, however, suggesting that in some cases, lifestyles enjoyed by North American dogs are better than those experienced by human beings. This is an uncomfortable North American reality.
