SB 6265, introduced in the State Senate yesterday by 3 Seattle Democrats and a Kitsap County Republican -- "Concerning the rescue of pets by emergency workers"
It is the policy of the state of Washington that in the event of an emergency or disaster, and for the purposes of search and rescue activities, an emergency worker shall make every practicable attempt under the circumstances, when engaged in emergency management activities, to rescue a victim's pet animal.And the rest of us shall pray that our houses don't burn down while firefighters are risking their lives elsewhere looking for singed hamsters. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 11, 2006 03:49 PM | Email This
PETA will now have a law that they can use to file "wrongful death" suits against fire departments and rescue workers.
Great.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 11, 2006 03:54 PMIf you are a member of PETA, you don't believe that pets belong to anyone. Hence, all PETA pets are not eligible.
Also, if the owner is not a victim, the pet doesn't qualify.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 11, 2006 04:04 PMRights are a concept that requires volitional consciousness. I'm perfectly willing to consider a tiger's rights if it wants to enter into an honest debate with me instead of mauling me, but I suspect that the tiger probably would prefer to maul me, because DUH, it's an animal.
The reason why leftists are so caught up in ascribing rights to animals is that for them it's the same mentality as giving special treatment to gays, blacks or women. To leftists, animals are merely victims of the oppressive capitalist, white male controlled society, so it's easy to see why animals are just another victim class that needs protection.
If my house is on fire, I'm going to tell the firefighter to let the cat die and save the people first.
Gee, it's nice to see the representatives using our time and our tax dollars constructively down in Olympia. Is there any wonder why people are so fed up with government? Sheesh.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 11, 2006 04:09 PMWhat a stupid way for legislators to waste time, money and effort. Where does owner responsibility come into play on this type of situation? I assume they are going to be willing to pay the going hourly rate for these mandated rescues, so that public funds are not used for such trivial pursuits.
Posted by: Clean House on January 11, 2006 04:24 PMRemember the problems encountered with search and rescue efforts after the Gulf Coast hurricanes? Several people who ought to have been carried out of the area resisted all efforts at persuasion because they couldn't take their pets.
I believe this bill simply tasks the rescue workers in the event of a disaster to make reasonable efforts to take the pets along with their owners.
It makes sense. Rescue efforts could be more efficient if the contact with each victim occurs only once -- resulting in the rescue of victim and pet. The disaster area will be less dangerous with fewer hungry, scared dogs running loose with no owners to control them.
Of course, it all depends on what is taken to be the meaning of "every practicable attempt under the circumstances," but our rescue personnel have to make judgments like that all the time.
Posted by: Micajah on January 11, 2006 04:25 PMAnd micajah, I define my house on fire as a time to use "emergency management".
And don't ever think people in New Orleans are like people elsewhere. They aren't.
Posted by: swatter on January 11, 2006 04:31 PMThe difficult part here is ascertaining what is "practicable". If a cat in a burning building is meowing at an exterior the door to be let out, rescuing would probably not expose a worker in turnout gear to particular risk and should thus be done. On the other hand, sending a rescue worker into a largely-involved building burning to rescue an animal whose whereabouts and condition are completely unknown is probably not reasonable. Most circumstances would probably fall between these.
Posted by: supercat on January 11, 2006 04:45 PMMost firefighters and emergency people I know will go out of their way for animals. There is no need for legislation.
This legislation is the reason there ain't no respect for politicians. Stefan was right on on this one.
How could these nimrod politicians even consider this? Mind boggling. And this party thinks they can do national defense and pick judges?
Posted by: swatter on January 11, 2006 05:01 PMby the way, folks, i'm from the louisiana shaws, not the florida ones. really! there's no conspiracy here...
Posted by: clay shaw on January 11, 2006 05:35 PMAN ACT Relating to emergency management; adding a new section to chapter 38.52 RCW....
It is the policy of the state of Washington that in the event of an emergency or disaster, and for the purposes of search and rescue activities, an emergency worker shall make every practicable attempt under the circumstances, when engaged in emergency management activities, to rescue a victim's pet animal.
As used in RCW chapter 38.52:
(1) "Emergency management" or "comprehensive emergency management" means the preparation for and the carrying out of all emergency functions, other than functions for which the military forces are primarily responsible, to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies and disasters, and to aid victims suffering from injury or damage, resulting from disasters caused by all hazards, whether natural, technological, or human caused, and to provide support for search and rescue operations for persons and property in distress. However, "emergency management" or "comprehensive emergency management" does not mean preparation for emergency evacuation or relocation of residents in anticipation of nuclear attack.
(6)(a) "Emergency or disaster" as used in all sections of this chapter except RCW 38.52.430 shall mean an event or set of circumstances which: (i) Demands immediate action to preserve public health, protect life, protect public property, or to provide relief to any stricken community overtaken by such occurrences, or (ii) reaches such a dimension or degree of destructiveness as to warrant the governor declaring a state of emergency pursuant to RCW 43.06.010.
(b) "Emergency" as used in RCW 38.52.430 means an incident that requires a normal police, coroner, fire, rescue, emergency medical services, or utility response as a result of a violation of one of the statutes enumerated in RCW 38.52.430.
RCW 38.52.430 is the sole exception noted in the definition -- and it applies to recovering the cost from drunk drivers, etc. That's, of course, not a community-wide disaster or emergency in most cases.
Even if it makes sense to try and rescue the pet to asuage hysteric owners into leaving their homes in an emergency there is still no reason why we should be wasting tax dollars on this in Olympia when there are so, so many more pressing issues that effect us every day.
BTW, I always thought that PETA stood for "People Enjoying Tits and A$$". This based on the fact that Hugh Heffner's ex was prominent in PETA.
Posted by: Fed Up on January 11, 2006 06:08 PMPosted by: KS on January 11, 2006 07:11 PM
Meanwhile we grant corperations the same rights as human beings ( and more), and they are nothing but a figment of the capitalist imagination.
So this issue is nothing more than another wetting of the diapers for SP.
Posted by: Steve Ramsey on January 11, 2006 08:03 PMBut reasonable according to whom? Cops get sued all the time for shooting people even though they felt a reasonable threat to their life (the "well, they should have shot him in the leg" arguement). Even when the cases are thrown out, it still costs you and I money to get to the point where it was thrown out. By making it a legal requirement for firefighters/first responders to do this, someone can claim it would have been reasonable for the firefighter to save his cat, he can sue. That alone costs us, the taxpayers, money.
Heck, my brother is a volunteer firefighter and first responder, and has been told flat out that if he comes across an accident outside his district, he is not to help at all, as the insurance won't cover outside the district and the district will be on the hook should he do something like break a victim's finger while rescueing them from a burning car and they sue... a very real possibility that has apparently happened elsewhere. You don't think someone won't sue for emotional distress for not risking life and limb to rescue fluffy because they thought it was "reasonable" to do so?
Posted by: Mike H on January 11, 2006 08:32 PMJust what I expect from Rightwingnuts though. Fogetting that human life comes first, but worrying that the Democrats dog next door will be rescued while you burn or drown next door. What foolishness. I suggest therapy and lobotomys for all of you.
Special note for Swatter. You have won my IGNORANUS of the year award for 2006, and it is only January. IGNORANUS: A stupid person who is also an a$$hole
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 11, 2006 09:32 PMOne of the issues I have with social progressives is that they seem to feel that all issues of compassion and human kindness need to be enacted in law. We see this in many of the discrimination laws and in the PC rules enacted by many public agencies.
This particular law is a small one, but little by little..... So much for freedom and liberty.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 11, 2006 09:34 PMI feel for the firefighters if this passes. There are already too many politically correct and "reasonable" issues they have to deal with. Many emergency responders had to sit through days of "cultural sensitivity" training before being allowed to go to New Orleans. I am amazed any one still wants to go into this field. Hats off to the ones who do it inspite of lawmakers.
I cover the handset and ask our the Chief if we rescue cats in trees.
Chief looks at me and says:
You ever seen a cat skeleton in a tree? And walks out.
I don't remember how I let the lady down, but we didn't go.
Firefighters already will make a reasonable effort to rescue animals. But no animal is worth sending a firefighter to the hospital or worse.
My favorite animal gig was a small smoky kitchen fire. We get in make sure it's out and start to clear the smoke. While this is going on there is a God Awful screeching in the living room. So I reach up pull down the smoke alarm and pop out the battery. The screech continues, I look around for the source. It was getting nerve wracking listen to a loud non stop screech. So loud localizing was hard, it seem to come from everywhere. I final track to under the couch. Shine my light under and see a parrot howling to beat the band.
I reach back thinking "How hard do parrots bite?" Sure enough he chomped on to the base of my thumb, my firefighting gloves saved me from injury but it still hurt and left a bruise. I carry the bird, latched onto my thumb, claws dug into the sleeve of my bunker coat, hanging upside down out to the home owner, still screeching, outside.
Owner was relieved and grateful, but it took a couple of minutes to pry the bird off, and another ten for him to either get laryngitis or run out of breath.
Stupid idea by stupid lawmakers completely disconnected from reality. Should make ride with Medic 10 in Seattle for a weekend that would give 'em a real education.
Posted by: JCM on January 11, 2006 09:45 PMAlso it sounds like you were in New Orleans after the shooting stopped. My sister works with some medical people who went down there right away and they will never do that again. They expected to help people, not get shot at.
Posted by: Burdabee on January 11, 2006 09:47 PMIn an evac there is limited space, resources and time to save PEOPLES LIVES. The animals can wait.
I've already told my wife if the big one hits and we run out of food before help arrives, the cat is on the menu.
Posted by: JCM on January 11, 2006 09:57 PMIf we RightWingNuts show up at your place after a disaster with a vehicle to try to evacuate you, we can use your logic to say even though the inside of the vehicle and the roof are full of other victims, we would have space available if you were willing to be tied to the undercarriage.
I think you are missing the point of this discussion. If legislators feel the need to write laws such as this one, there are bigger problems here than meets the eye. This proposed legislation is a big slap in the face to all the hardworking emergency responders who already try to help out when the situation calls for it and an insult on their character. Oh wait, character doesn't matter to liberals.
Posted by: Burdabee on January 11, 2006 10:27 PMThis is just a serious admission that these Senators have NOTHING to do.
Sickening really. . .
Posted by: Robert Dean on January 12, 2006 04:47 AMPeople from New Orleans are unique not for their skin color, but because They.....
1. Chose to live below sea level
2. Did not leave town in the face of a category five hurricane when they were warned to evacuate
3. Expected others to rescue them rather than use their own initiative and any means at their disposal
4. Failed to provide and care for their own elderly and infirm
5. Blamed others (the President) for their own failure to prepare and act
6. Shot at their rescuers
7. Stood by, for the most part, and did nothing as looters ransacked their neighbors' homes and businesses
8. Elected idiots (Democrats) to state and local governments who did not follow their own evacuation plans, squandered levee upgrade funding on other things, left school buses parked while people waited for rescue, and blamed the federal government for their own stupidity and inaction
My niece (an emergency room charge nurse at a local trauma center) served in a volunteer triage team in the heart of the city right after the disaster. She was grateful that the 82nd Airborne was headquartered next their tent hospital, as military protection was necessary due to the armed bands of violent criminals roaming the streets. And you believe skin color was the issue? The issue is a disease called LIBERALISM, which breeds the conditions and attitudes prevalent in New Orleans. Is Seattle far behind?
Posted by: Saltherring on January 12, 2006 05:42 AMBeing told days ahead to get out of Dodge and then not doing it is one thing. The other is electing idiot mayors and governor to represent them.
So, back on track. Everyone acknowledges that emergency personnel currently do their best to help animals in emergencies. So, again, why is there a need for a law?
Again, why make a law when it is not needed?
Again, what is the role of government? Protect animals?
Posted by: swatter on January 12, 2006 07:20 AMDo a gedanken experiment; take the population of Salt Lake, Orem and Provo, do to them what happened in N.O. the disaster, the response the whole meal deal.
What would the out come have been? Completely different. The Super Dome would have organized, regulated and safe. Why? Different kind of thought processes. Which has nothing to do with color. It's folks like left foot who jump to the racist conclusions.
Read Bill's essay.
Firefighters and fire departments have to have training and plans for everything. If a firefighter splits open his thumb with a hammer and need stitches, L&I, WISHA and OSHA all get the injury report. They stop by and check the training records. If the firefighter with the swollen thumb does not have current training in the use of hand tools the department will be fined.
It is that stupid and petty. I am not exaggerating. Drop by your local fire department walk around the engine and aid unit, open all the cabinets and drawers. Every single tool and piece of equipment has state mandated training requirements. If a firefighter falls off a ladder and breaks his leg, the regulatory agencies descend and investigate. If the find any firefighter is lacking in any required training, regardless if it was related to the incident or not BINGO fine.
When pet rescue becomes law. The FD will have to have a plan for rescue, care, transportation and disposition for the animals. The will have to practice and train for the eventuality of pet rescue. When WISHA comes in and the plan is not current, BINGO fine. (I always loved one state agency fining another state agency).
Firefighters barely have time in the year to keep current on all the required training. If they actually have to respond to emergencies they fall behind in training. Now the numbnuts in Olympian and with Left Feet want to require the FD to include pet rescue.
Great let's take up more of the fighters time and resources planning, training and preparing for pet rescue.
To borrow a phrase:
IGNORANUS: A stupid person who is also an a$$hole
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/
Posted by: JCM on January 12, 2006 07:38 AMLiberal idiots say the darndest things!
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 12, 2006 07:39 AMget the picture now,burdabee?
Posted by: clay shaw on January 12, 2006 08:24 AMIf you will read the entire string you will see that one of your conservative cohorts mentioned the hampsters and firemen running in while humans die. Just like a dumba$$ RightWingNut to draw a conclusion when he has none of the facts. Moron. Conservatives say the stupidest things. You too are an ignoranus. Stupid and an a$$hole. Congratulations.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 12, 2006 09:22 AMI asked Jan Drago if I could video or teleconference in or have someone present a prepared statement in my stead and was answered with deafening silence. So, I've sent my three minute blurb to my dad and asked if he could show up at the meeting and see if he can present for me. If not, here was the blurb that never saw the light of day -
Good Afternoon Ladies, Gentlemen, Members of the Council.
I am unfortunately not able to make this presentation in person due to logistical obstacles, but I have asked my father to present my case before the Council.
A brief bit about myself – I was born in Seattle on the 10th of April, 1980. I grew up around the Green Lake area. I attended Seattle Public Schools – Wedgwood elementary, Washington Middle School, Roosevelt and Middle College High Schools. I played soccer at Woodland Park for a number of years. Though the vast majority of my adult life has been spent in uniform or supporting those in uniform, I have always considered myself a Seattleite and followed the affairs of my hometown.
That being said, I am by no means “one of the regulars" in regards to local politics. In fact, it could be accurately stated that he sum total of my political experience is a campaign I volunteered on while in High School. I have not ever held elected office before nor have I campaigned for such. I do not have political savvy based on years of operating within the system or wheeling and dealing. What I do have to offer is dedicated service. Upon reaching the age of majority, I put on the cloth of the nation and rendered 5 years of faithful service as an enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps. Following my discharge to the Commanding General, 1st Civilian Division, I accepted a position as a switch technician at a forward logistics hub in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. I can offer only to faithfully execute the duties of the office and perform the expressed will of the electorate. It is my understanding and belief that a government derives its just power from the consent of the governed. If appointed I will ensure that I accurately represent the will of the people of Seattle in matters of concern to the public.
I understand that the Council is not interested in a placeholder. As stated previously I have no political campaigning experience. What I do have is the ability to adapt, improvise and overcome. I believe that if appointed my record would speak for itself when election time came around. Perhaps this is youthful naiveté or bravado, but it has always been my belief that if an elected official performs to a high standard and accurately represents his or her constituents’ concerns then he or she need not worry come election time. Actions speak louder than words.
He would probably look for "hampsters" to rescue in a "Dumbster"
Thanks for once again serving not only as a poster boy for simpletons everywhere, but as a compelling illustration in support of the notion that liberalism has a future every bit as rosy as the (other) Dodo's!
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 12, 2006 10:26 AMWhy all this hoopla? This thread is a waste of everyone's time. Let's move on to something more exciting.
Posted by: Libertarian on January 12, 2006 11:31 AMYou are so smart. Please read the last word of Sharks original post. It was your nutjob leader who brought it up, not I. I really think you should read and understand the post, before commenting on the thread. The post is part of the thread. You continue to spout off without any of the necessary information. How do you get through each day without hurting yourself, not to mention others?
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 12, 2006 12:26 PMSoupster can't defend himself? Nice of you to step up Swatter. I am sure Soupster appreciates it.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 12, 2006 01:22 PMLiberals CAN admit they're wrong.
THAT should come in handy.
Just be sure to get it in writing.
MLF - maybe you should peel a few layers off that lead helmet you're wearing so the rays can penetrate. It's for your own good.
Posted by: rickyragg on January 12, 2006 03:04 PMHave you ever been in a fire? I bet not.
Carry a 2.5 inch hose into a burning building.
I bet not.
Don't tell us or the people who give our lives to save other people to save your sorry AS+
OK..... shut the heck up.
Until you attend maybe one class at NorthBend or some where else, shut up!
Get my point!
Yes I do this stuff, jerk!
Lee
Posted by: AemyMedic?vet on January 12, 2006 06:01 PMThat's OK MLF - you already rose 5 points in my book by your admission....
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 12, 2006 08:23 PMCome on, bunk up, sling your air pack, pick up your hose with your left hand, right hand on the bail (control valve), carry your flashlight with your other hand, IR detector with the next hand, use the next two hands to crawl to the fire. On the way pick up kitty with you spare hand with you last hand hold a O2 mask over kitties little face.
Former Nozzle Head.
Posted by: JCM on January 13, 2006 07:03 AMThe family court judge will screw you royally and give you a blue ribbon for paying with a smile.
Posted by: Andy on January 13, 2006 08:58 AMLast night Suits and Carlson both covered the topic on the radio. They got committed people on both sides of the issue to comments- from the bleeding heart liberal lady to the medical and EMT people.
Consensus, emergency people should try to save the animals but there is no need for a law since there are enough things to worry about than a lawsuit for not saving Tweety the canary.
Posted by: swatter on January 13, 2006 09:33 AMThere are a million plans out there that are out there just to secure money that don't have a prayer of being implemented. Try Kyoto as one that people know about.
And people wonder with people like Inslee why government seems so inefficient and bloated.
Posted by: swatter on January 13, 2006 09:57 AMThanks, I'll remember to do that while I'm also fighting the fire.
Great to have you on my team.
Did we miss anything?
Shall I go into the time I was trying to get a dog out of a home and ended up having three nice holes in my hand when he bit me.
Try it some time LEFT-fool.
Gezzzzzzzzzz what a corn ball!
