Bill Overview
Title: PAW Act
Description: This act directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a working group relating to best practices and federal guidance for animals in emergencies and disasters. Specifically, the working group shall (1) encourage and foster collaborative efforts among individuals and entities working to address the needs of household pets, service and assistance animals, and captive animals in emergency and disaster preparedness, response, and recovery; and (2) review best practices and federal guidance on sheltering and evacuation planning relating to the needs of such pets and animals.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals with household pets, service animals, or reliant on captive animals
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill focuses on animals during emergencies, particularly household pets, service animals, and captive animals.
- Pet owners will be directly impacted as the act aims to improve response and recovery for animals in emergencies.
- Service and assistance animal handlers will benefit from better protocols that ensure the safety of their animals during disasters.
- Entities such as animal shelters, rescue organizations, and emergency management agencies will be affected as they adopt new guidelines and practices.
Reasoning
- The PAW Act affects individuals with household pets, service animals, and those who work with or manage captive animals. It's important to consider a mix of people who will have varying degrees of impact from high to none at all.
- Pet owners form a significant part of the population affected, so including both rural and urban pet owners will give a range of perspectives.
- Service animal handlers, especially those with disabilities, will directly benefit from improved emergency preparedness, influencing their wellbeing positively.
- Animal shelters and rescue organizations might see changes in operational procedures, hence representatives from these sectors will provide relevant insights.
- The policy will not have a widespread impact on everyone in the general population, so inclusion of people with low or no impact will help highlight this.
Simulated Interviews
Veterinarian (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there's a focus on animals in disasters. They are often forgotten in emergency plans.
- Improved guidelines could really enhance our shelter's operations during emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Firefighter (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would help us manage animals during rescues much more effectively.
- Pets are often missed when we plan for disaster response. This needs to change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Visually impaired, uses service dog (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've always worried about what would happen to my dog in a disaster. This act could help me feel safer.
- I support policies that recognize the importance of service animals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Animal sanctuary manager (Denver, CO)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the PAW Act as integral to safeguarding both animals and staff during emergencies.
- It can reduce our risks and improve safety protocols substantially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Pet Owner, works in IT (Miami, FL)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hadn't really thought about what happens to pets during disasters. This is useful information.
- Hopefully, this act will improve my preparedness too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Animal rights activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is a positive step towards acknowledging the rights of animals.
- I'm optimistic about future legislation that protects animals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Bismarck, ND)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not something I thought affected me until now.
- I hope local rescues benefit from this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Owner of local animal shelter (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with what we aim to do—providing better safety for animals during crises.
- Can have significant benefits locally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Including animals in emergency plans is good but doesn't impact me directly.
- Could raise community awareness about pet care in disasters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Research scientist, works with lab animals (Austin, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support efforts to improve animal welfare in emergencies.
- Hope it doesn't lead to excessive administrative work for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $6500000)
Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The scale of the task involves coordination among numerous stakeholders, including local agencies, which could affect the cost.
- The working group's effectiveness will depend on the availability of skilled professionals and experts in both animal welfare and emergency management.
- There may be a need for additional resources if the initial efforts reveal significant gaps in current practices and guidelines.
- Animal welfare advocacy could introduce modifications or additional requirements that might affect the overall cost.