The PETS Act, which is an acronym for "Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act", is being pushed by the Humane Society of the United States. To sum it up, it requires each State to explain how it plans to accomodate pets owners during times of emergency.

This all came out as a result of thousands of animals found wandering loose after Hurricane Katrina. There were stories of people forced to give up their pets because Red Cross shelters wouldn't accept them. Rescuers in boats told folks that they wouldn't let any animals on board. Animal activists were outraged, and wanted something done to prevent it from happening again. Enter the PETS Act.

Gina Spadafori, who writes a very good pet blog, has been writing about this subject ever since Hurricane Katrina struck, and brings up some very good points. Here's an example. While I do support the PETS Act in principle, I'm sorry to say that it's largely a waste of time.

I only support the PETS Act because I think it will cause States to think about animals, and anytime you can get people to think about animals, its a good step forward.

But this legislation doesn't require states to implement these plans. That's mainly because the federal government doesn't have the authority to force states to do so. It can do other things to encourage implementation, such as withhold federal aid funding. But then again, how it would look if the federal government held back assistance for healthcare just because the State didn't provide emergency shelter for pets? I doubt the people would stand for that.

That's why the PETS Act is practically useless. Read it for yourself, and tell me where the teeth is.

The real issue here is money. The States don't have money to implement this level of emergency assistance, and I can tell you now that it won't do so, even if it's in their plans. When you have so many people needing public assistance, and so little money to spare, pets are going to fall way down on the list of priorities.

Moreover, government doesn't have the heart to provide aid. Only people have hearts. Government is just a collective body of elected and appointed officials. Where is there a heart to motivate government into doing something charitable?

This is why we have charities like the HSUS, to do the things that government is incapable of, or inefficient at doing. Private organizations should be empowered to provide assistance. As human beings, we have the generosity in our hearts to drive us towards doing good things. And, we'll do good things if government gets out of our way. What exactly does government know about animals anyways?

That's why it makes no sense to me that a large charitable organization like the HSUS spend so much of its time and money trying to get government to solve our problems. Seems like whenever a problem raises its ugly head, folks want the government to do something about it. How about empowering people to do something instead? The HSUS should solve problems itself, by spending money on animals directly.

Don't get me wrong, I know the HSUS has done many great things on its own, and continues to do so. But it can do even better if it focused itself 100% on helping animals directly, instead of trying solve problems indirectly as a political lobbyist.

Why can't the HSUS build their own series of emergency shelters for pets and pet owners? If the Red Cross can do it for people, then it seems the HSUS can do it for animals. I'd bet the HSUS would get tons more in donations if it brought itself into every community.

Otherwise, if it's just going to spend its donations pushing ineffective legislation, your money would go further if you bought yourself a canoe, and rescued some dogs yourself.