Hillary A. Leonard and Debra L. Scammon
Executive Summary
On October 6, 2006, just one year after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush signed the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act (PETS Act) into law. The act amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as amended by Public Law No. 106-390) and makes availability of federal disaster assistance funds contingent on states having plans that provide for the needs of people with service animals and/or household pets. Many questions related to the values society places on pets, the translation of these values into public policy, and the ways marketing can support implementation of the new policy arise from the passage of the PETS Act.
The primary rationale for the PETS Act as is the safety of humans. History shows that humans are less likely to take self-protective behaviors during emergencies and may actually take personal risks if they are unable to care for their pets adequately. Many proponents of the act believe that if emergency planning acknowledges the significance of animals to humans, enhanced safety of humans will be a natural by-product. A secondary rationale for the law is animal welfare. In this regard, understanding the value society places on pets and service animals is important in understanding the implications of the PETS Act.
Although the experiences during Hurricane Katrina propelled concern for pets, service animals, and their human caretakers to the forefront of public visibility and onto the agenda of policy makers, the resultant PETS Act also reflects a slow but radical change in the understanding of pets in the United States. Historically, pets have been considered personal property, with little worth beyond their market value. However, within the previous three decades public sentiment toward animals has shifted dramatically as people's understanding of the emotional and sentimental value of their pets has changed.
Today, society questions the morality of valuing animals solely on the basis of their worth to humans. The implications of recognizing the inherent value of animals as well as their rights to life and to a life free of pain and suffering have become important issues both philosophically and practically. How society resolves the legal and moral status and rights of animals and pets has implications for the implementation of the PETS Act.
Planning and concerns for animals in disasters can be broken into four broad areas: economic considerations, public health issues, the emotional well-being of humans who share bonds with pets, and the welfare of pets themselves. Historically, the first two considerations have been paramount. Traditional planning for animals revolved around the agricultural value of animals, in terms of both their impact on the economy and their importance as secure food sources. Public health issues have also been a concern with regard to animals. Many experts believe that asking people to leave their pets behind in evacuations gives the false impression that the situation is not severe. Facilitating the evacuation of pets may help convey the seriousness of the situation, improve compliance with evacuation requests, and benefit public health.
Recently, humane concerns have gained more importance. Consideration of the appropriate ethical treatment of all living creatures is a key consideration. Such concerns have increased in prominence as public sentiment toward animals has shifted.
In short, the PETS Act could be interpreted to mean that pets have rights of their own and thus deserve protection, or it could be interpreted to mean that pets are simply special possessions (as other consumer possessions) that require special accommodation.
Critics argue that the PETS Act elevates the importance of saving pets to be equal to that of saving humans and inappropriately requires directing resources to save animals to the detriment of saving human lives. However, the PETS Act neither establishes priorities nor specifies what states must do to accommodate pets, only that they must have a plan for pets and service animals in place. As with many federal policies, the PETS Act provides the impetus for planning but leaves the details up to states and local jurisdictions.
Despite unresolved policy issues surrounding the PETS Act, the requirement that states and localities must include pets and service animals in disaster planning means that plans need to be developed. Marketing expertise has much to contribute to animal disaster preparedness and potentially could be used to leverage this preparedness to improve overall emergency preparedness. Social marketing programs can be invaluable in supporting citizen education and preparedness. As pet owners become more aware of and take a more active role in animal emergency preparedness, marketers are likely to find new product and service opportunities. Finally, marketers' expertise in logistics and distribution could help in planning for and implementing disaster assistance.
Biography
Hillary A. Leonard is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the College of Business at the University of Rhode Island. Dr. Leonard earned her BA from Williams College and her PhD in Marketing from University of Utah. Hillary's areas of research include consumer culture theory, consumer behavior, and public policy and marketing. She has published in Journal of Business Research and has presented at the Marketing and Public Policy Conference, the Association for Consumer Research North America and European Conferences, and the Consumer Culture Theory Conference.
Debra L. Scammon is Emma Eccles Jones Professor of Marketing in the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Debra earned her PhD in Marketing from the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Scammon's areas of research include consumer behavior, public policy and marketing, health care marketing, and consumer vulnerability. Scammon held a position as in-house marketing and advertising research consultant to the Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection in 1978–1979. Dr. Scammon has published in Journal of Marketing, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, and Journal of Business Research. She is past editor of Journal of Public Policy & Marketing and is active in the American Marketing Association's special interest group on Marketing and Society and the Association for Consumer Research.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 2, Fall 2007
View Table of Contents