Why the Fake Quake?

/in

by Bob Buddemeier

On October 21, at 10:21 a.m., some of us joined in the Great Shakeout event – an imaginary earthquake, for which we were supposed to take appropriate action (Drop, Cover, and Hold is the relevant  slogan).  I happened to be in the deep end of the pool, for which I had encountered no instructions.  I settled for hanging on tightly to the ladder rails.  I had a good view of the gym, and I did not see anybody drop to the floor and crawl under the treadmill, or any of the other appliances.

I rather suspect that overall participation was underwhelming.  In part that can be ascribed to current conditions – it’s still COVID season, RVM staffing issues, etc.  Jens Larsen put out a reminder memo and we ran some notices on Channel 900, but we didn’t come anywhere close to the kind of “light ‘em up” festivity that Sarah Karnatz is known for.  She has to be on the recruitment list for next year.

But what’s the point?  Why should we even think about 10:21 a.m. much less get down on the floor and crawl under a table?   And then, as Teddie Hight pointed out, try to figure out how to get up again.

Well, the first part of why is because you might need to.  In case you haven’t heard, or don’t remember, we live in the region that will be affected by a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake.  Not might, WILL.  And what is a CSZ earthquake?  It’s BIG.  Like 9.0 at the epicenter and maybe 7 by the time it gets to Medford.  This is not your California 7, however – those have durations measured in seconds.  Up here, the CSZ goes on for minutes  — lots of shaking time for things to come unglued.

Now, it is true that we may all die of something else before the CSZ produces a 9.0, but if not, it’s reassuring to think that you can do something to keep from being crushed into a pulpy mess.  And if asked what that is, you might think for a moment and then say “Drop, Cover and Hold.”  The trouble is, it’s that moment that’s going to get you.  You need to be headed under the table at the fist wiggle, not after a period of intellectual reflection on the appropriate course of action.

And, few if any people can take that kind of immediate action without practice, or at least frequent visualization.  Remember the first time you let out a clutch in Driver’s Ed class?  A lot of hesitation, followed by slow action, followed by an abrupt jerk.  Equivalent to hitting your head on the leg after being too slow to get under the table.  Or the first dive into the pool?  Rocking back and forth and flexing your leg muscles on the edge before getting the inevitable nose full of water?  After doing those things a number of times, you got pretty good.

The problem is that we don’t get a lot of practice quakes to warm up on.  So fake it.  By now you should be feeling remorse for having failed to practice when the rest of the world did.  You can make up for it – make a deal with your partner or a friend to just say “Earthquake!” occasionally.  And practice your response.  There’s something you are supposed to do even if you can’t drop, cover, and hold.  Find out.  Or teach Alexa to say “earthquake” instead of “boodle-dee-oodledy-boodle.”

So, see you at the Great Shakeout next year.  Unless the Big One comes first and you haven’t practiced.

NIT WIT NEWZ

/in ,

(Nit WIt Newz is an unauthorized, often unreliable, on-line news service designed to keep Manor residents abreast of the inconsequential, sometimes fanciful, and most always superficial events that dramatically shape and inform our everyday lives here at Rogue Valley Manor.)

Campus-Wide Newz Briefs

                             

 CUTTING GARDEN (FINAL) SOLUTION AT HAND

Last summer’s devastation of dahlias in Manor’s cutting garden by area squirrels flummox RVM Sub-Committee for Rodent Control.

As reported in July minutes of Resident’s Council meeting: traps, sprays, baits, and fencing prove ineffective. Wily, bushy-tailed rodents prove impervious to deterrents.

Future bleak for dahlia loving residents—until now!

Resolution of squirrel menace reportedly at hand,

Sub-Committee narrows options to two:

-Introduce smoking to squirrels. (Tobacco industry embraces this option. Offers to underwrite feasibility tests).

-Deny squirrels third booster shot. (Non-vaxxers favor this option).

Newly minted Squirrel World wisdom:

Acorns, yes.  Dahlias, no.

 

——————

  

MANOR MART MOVE QUELLS RESIDENT DISAPPOINTMENT

Small set of peevish residents express displeasure at new Manor retail outlet not offering maxi-sized Big Gulp or Slurpee drinks.

Nor, group learns, will Mart be stocking other popular convenience store staples—beef jerky and foot-long, red licorice ropes.

Longing for a time past, another Manor group anticipated Mart would include soda fountain, racks of movie magazines and comic books; health aids like hot water bottles, mustard plasters; and beauty supplies including snoods, face powder, and henna rinse products.

In seemingly unrelated matter, Manor Mart announces the addition of beer, wine, and small bottles of liquor to its shelves.

Discontent of fretting groups fades.

Marked increase in Mart foot-traffic expected.

 

——————

                                                          Is this safe?

THE BRIDGES OF ROGUE VALLEY MANOR

 

Anticipating passage of an infrastructure bill, federal government dispatches members of Army Corps of Engineers to inspect prospective in-need sites throughout country.

Rogue Valley Manor infrastructure included in questionable sites.

Both Manor bridges tabbed for safety inspection.

In day-long examination, engineers put bridge over eastside lake and bridge spanning small lagoon at Village Center Drive and Malama Way through series of rigorous stress tests.

Inspections reveal structural integrity of Manor bridges not compromised.

Report assures residents safe bridge crossings to “…high degree of certainty.”

In addition to walking, residents may cross bridges confidently when using their popular small vehicles—skateboards, e-scooters, motorcycles, et al.

Concluding their work here at RVM, the Corps of Engineers move south for inspections of the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges.   Before leaving, the safety-cautious engineers suggest to Manor management the posting of “NO DIVING” signs at both Manor bridge sites.

 

 

—A. Looney

Russy and Anita- As Young As The Peace Corps

/in ,

This is part of a series of articles on the experiences of RVM residents in the Peace Corps.  Also in this issue is the article on Jean and John Herron; the November issue featured Joni Johnson and Asifa Kanji and David Drury.  Stay tuned…

by Joni Johnson

Russy and Anita Sumariwalla were trainers in the Peace Corps almost at its inception. They were both students (close, but not married) at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst when Russy was tapped as the Assistant Training Project Director for the first group of volunteers to go to Senegal, the Ivory Coast and Niger. This was in the Fall of 1962. President John Kennedy started The Peace Corps in 1961 as a project to promote world peace and friendly international relations. The first trainees went to Africa and South America in the summer of that year. Russy and Anita were right on the cutting edge of the Peace Corps, providing training for their groups just one year later.

At the time, Russy was working on a project for John Ryan, the Secretary of the University, while doing post graduate study. Russy had come from Bombay (now called Mumbai) and had only been in the country since 1959, first getting his Master of Laws degree in Charlottesville, Virginia, and then moving to the University of Massachusetts for study in International Law and International Organization. Ryan admired his work and thought that his multicultural background would help him in running the nuts and bolts of a training program which took volunteers from everywhere in the United States with plans to send them to three French speaking African countries. Anita had arrived in the United States by boat from Rotterdam in 1961. Having been born in the French speaking region of Switzerland, Anita was a perfect addition to the team of eleven French teachers for these 60 students. The goal was to get the new volunteers, ranging in age from 18 to 64, ready to take part in a two-year program to help and support the citizens of these African countries, largely in rural areas.

Almost none of the students spoke French when they arrived on campus. Anita and her fellow teachers needed to get these students able to speak passable French so they could carry out their lives in their new environments. So Anita not only taught these students during their 7am to 10pm daily schedules of classes and activities, but she ate meals with them as well. The Peace Corps had provided materials for teaching French, which they used in class. Meals and outside activities were a time to help them develop their vocabulary and conversational and reading skills in their new language.

Those fifteen hour days might include Physical Conditioning, Breakfast, and then classes in French, and, depending on their country, Food and Nutrition, Water and Waste, Goats, Irrigation, and Farm Machinery. Then more French, Lunch, American Studies and World Affairs, American Culture, Art, Music, The American Character, Rural Community Development, Mental Health, First Aid, Dinner, and more French.

Russy, as the Assistant director of the program, was charged with making everything run smoothly from housing to dining to problems between students. By the second week of fifteen hour days, students were generally exhausted, and that was the time that issues arose. Typically, many of the problems were with people who, from all over the country, from all ages and all walks of life and all types of American accents, were learning to get along with one another while experiencing exhaustion and anxiety as well as excitement. Both Russy and Anita emphasized that listening was probably one of the most useful tools of the trade in working with the volunteers as these problems arose. And of course, as the volunteers solved these problems with each other, they learned skills that would benefit them in the long run as they worked with their African colleagues.

Not only did the volunteers need to learn French, but they all had to become knowledgeable in the fields in which they were expected to support their African brethren. These areas included health, childcare, dealing with the sick, new skills to avoid Typhoid and Malaria (by boiling water, etc.) and help in the area of agriculture.

All the volunteers were idealistic and wanted to change the world. They all had a sense of adventure. But part of training was also to help them prepare for the disappointments that lay in store, like the possible non-existence of hot showers, or their programs being held up by lack of materials or promised materials not arriving for weeks. So that meant that training needed to include providing volunteers with the idea of never giving up and ways to maintain their spirits. One of the big adventures for the volunteers was a trip to the United Nations in New York for a reception, as invited guests of the Ambassador of Niger. This trip helped the volunteers form a deep connection to the Peace Corps and its goals.

I asked them both Anita and Russy what they would want their readers to know about their experience. Anita expressed her admiration for the volunteers: “They were so eager and courageous. Many of them had little idea of the country they were assigned to. Good training was such a vital part of their future success. I told them that they were ambassadors. Whatever they did or said would reflect on the U.S. Also, we cautioned them to respect the culture of their hosts even if they did not understand them. Seeing the generosity of the American spirit may have even influenced me to become an American citizen.”

Russy said that he was very impressed by our country’s enlightened approach to spreading our sense of freedom to developing countries. He admired all of the volunteers for wanting to make a better world and in a sense sacrificing two years of their lives to do this. He says, “I found myself lucky to have had that experience. It broadened my outlook. I had always felt that I was a citizen of the world, but this took it out of the abstract and made it a reality. I saw respect, love, care, tolerance and dignity for others.”

Russy’s and Anita’s experiences in the Peace Corps as trainers mirrored in many ways the experiences of the volunteers.  It was a life changing and life affirming event.

Peace Corps Adventures in Ecuador with David Guzetta and Carolyn Auker

/in ,

This is one of the last two of our series on  the experiences of RVM residents in the Peace Corps.  Also in this issue is the article on Betsy Portaro.  The December issue featured Jean and John Herron and Russy and Anita Sumariwalla; the November issue contained articles on Joni Johnson and Asifa Kanji and David Drury.

 

by Joni Johnson

Unlike the other volunteers in our series on the Peace Corps, David Guzetta and Carolyn Auker joined the Peace Corps in 1988 right in the middle of their careers. Many join right out of college or shortly after retirement.  David and Carolyn joined in their early 40’s.  Both had moved to Amarillo, Texas from Columbus, Ohio for what was supposed to be a long contract with the Department of Energy for David.  The contract ultimately disappeared within months, leaving many of its employees without home or resources.  Luckily, David and Carolyn had lost nothing other than expectations since they had sold their home in Ohio and were footloose and fancy free.  And so, rather than go back to what they had been doing before, they decided to search for adventure with the Peace Corps.

Fortunately, they were able to find placement as a professional couple in Ecuador. They did all of their training in Tumbaco, about thirty minutes away by bus from the capital of Quito and then moved to Quito for their projects.  They lived in a three bedroom flat in a nice neighborhood in Quito.  Dave had 15+ years of experience and a PhD in Environmental Science and Engineering, and so his first job was as Advisor to the National Director of the Ecuadorian Institute of Sanitary Works.

Scanner

Carolyn had been a Medical Lab technologist for 15+ years and was expecting to serve in some health care project. She found herself involved with MAP International, which provides medicinal assistance in developing countries.  Her particular job was getting lab results from tests of local children for parasites in their blood.  The hope was that there would be no parasites.  However, the results were far from their expectations, and many children had three to six or more parasites living in their system due to the pollution in water and food.

Ecuador is a Spanish speaking country, and both David and Carolyn needed to improve their language skills.  Dave had had only two years of Spanish in high school plus the three months of Peace Corps training.  According to both of them, Carolyn had an excellent ear for languages, but they both needed work to improve their Spanish. Two years in Ecuador certainly gave them that opportunity. Dave spoke mainly Spanish during his tenure in Ecuador. And when Carolyn would travel to southern Ecuador once a month or two to a clinic, she would also have more of a chance to speak Spanish.

One story very vividly etched in their memory was the number of times Carolyn was robbed. They were never physically harmed, but they found that robbers, mostly old women, would work in pairs, so that one might squirt mustard on your back and then say “sucia” which meant dirty and then when you were trying to get rid of the mustard on your back, the other person would rob you in the front.  After a while, Dave and Carolyn got very good at picking out who might try to get them, so it became much less of a problem.  Once, they cornered one of the robbers, an old lady who Dave held against a car while yelling, “Ladrona, ladrona,” which means thief.  She responded, “Yes, I’m a ladrona. Can you let me go now?”

After Dave’s first year with the Ecuadorian Institute, he changed his project to identifying where the sources of pollution existed for the city of Quito.  Those included pollution in air, water and solid waste.  He would meet face to face with his Ecuadorian counterparts and would help them complete a questionnaire on pollution.

Towards the end of their time in Ecuador, Dave helped a Russian woman translate a book on Air Quality Modeling from English to Russian. First, Dave translated it from English to Spanish (which became very useful to his office at the Institute) and then the woman translated it from Spanish to Russian for her office.

Dave and Carolyn found that they could travel on an amazingly small budget.  They were able to manage a six-week trip through Bolivia, Peru and Chile by bus, staying in small hotels, for less than $1500 for the two of them.

Dave’s work with Pichincha Province was extremely helpful.  It provided baseline data on the quantity and sources of pollution.  Quito and the Province used this information to prioritize their work.  The information collected was also used to apply for grants to international aid organization and non-government organizations (NGO).

Similarly, the work Carolyn did also helped to identify and quantify health issues that could be addressed by Medical Assistance Plan (her organization) and other health organization.  Identifying a variety of parasites would also identify the source of these parasites.  Most of them were water-born.

When asked how their PC experience had affected them, they said that it was important to learn how to live in a third world culture.  They became more appreciative of the US and its relatively strong infrastructure as compared to the minimal help that people might receive in Ecuador.  On the other hand, they were amazed at the ability to choose a live chicken at the market and then come back twenty minutes later to find it already plucked and ready for the oven.  They appreciated the immediacy of that culture. They felt that what they gave to their Ecuadorian companions was a way to look at problems differently and more creatively since math was usually taught by rote in Ecuador.   In looking back, they were so happy to have had the experience in Ecuador.  It was really irreplaceable.

 

 

 

This Too Could Be You!

/in ,

“Neighbors Together” Has A Bang Up Affair on Village Center Drive

By Joni Johnson

On Friday, August 27 at 4 pm, Village Center Drive turned into Party Central thanks to“Neighbors Together”, an idea originating with Carolyn Bennett, Willi Zilkey, Holly Lawson and Lynn Ogren. After all the isolation from the Pandemic, this group was on a mission to create social connectors throughout the campus. Well, they certainly succeeded on Village Center Drive.

 

With the help of a few interested residents on the drive, the Neighbors Together party was born. The small group of Village Center Drive residents chose a date and picked a spot on their street with a parking cutout and a bit of shade. They booked their time with Sarah Karnatz who then arranged for delivery of tables and chairs on the day of their gathering. They publicized their “Neighbors Together” with a flyer given to each resident and signage placed at the end of their street on the day of the event. The signage was designed and supplied by the Marketing Department. The signs have been designed to be able to pass from one neighborhood to another. Drinks were BYOB and foods were kept to a minimum. Bag snacks were purchased at Costco and put in inexpensive plastic bowels found at the dollar store. With ease and simplicity, the party was born!!!! I arrived a few minutes after four and the gaiety was in full swing. For all that showed up, the joy was apparent. People were just plain happy to be together. Even with a less than stellar air quality, the slight breeze at 4 pm made it all quite comfortable. Some people kept their masks on as a caution against either the smoke or the Delta variant.

Candice Bushell describes what it is like to be there

The masks did not seem to deter their sharing of greetings. In spite of the difficulties this summer to plan an outdoor gathering, I would guess that there were at least 35 people there if not more. Residents commented that for many it was the first chance they had in a long time to see people from the other end of their street. Another said that in the past, much of our socializing took place around mealtime; but, that sort of thing had been so difficult during the past year and a half. At last, this was a way to bring back some casual socializing amongst the neighbors. The bottom line is that it takes very little effort for a great return: Bringing “Neighbors Together”! Someone put it perfectly. “It was just wonderful to be together”.

Carolyn Bennett explains a little bit about the process

If you would like to do this for your street, it is easy. This event was resident driven, not a catered event. You can contact Sarah Karnatz directly (x7246) to set up the date, time, and location. If you need tables or chairs, she can assist you. For any other assistance please feel free to contact Carolyn Bennett (cjosmith341@gmail.com or 6249) or Willi Zilkey (willizilkey@gmail.com or 6871). They are willing to give you a packet of information regarding the advertising for your event and the information necessary to make your arrangements with Sarah Karantz.

Preparation Information — How to Do It

/in

 

What to have or do — and how

In the worst case disaster (a Cascadia earthquake) we may be without utilities, municipal services, or access to supplies for days and possibly weeks.  Thoughtful preparation can be, literally, a lifesaver — and we don’t need an earthquake for emergency preparations to become very important.  Although needs and opportunities will be different for cottage residents and apartment occupants, the following articles provide information on how to prepare.

WATER

LIGHT AND ELECTRICITY

SANITATION

MEDICATION

IDENTITY & DOCUMENTS

PETS 

HOUSEHOLD  (under construction)

FOOD  (under construction)

GO-BAG  (under construction)

CAR  (under construction)

 

What’s New in Prepare

/in

Problems of Pets and Preparedness

/in , ,

by Bob Buddemeier

INTRODUCTION:  I was recently privileged to be asked to organize a resident review of a draft RVM document on handling of pets in a wildfire evacuation. I say “privileged” because I am committed to emergency preparedness and to resident consultation on RVM actions, and (disagreement on details notwithstanding) I believe that the RVM Administration is too.

I contacted a group of 6 pet-owners.  After two rounds of email discussion it seemed clear to me and to the RVM representative (based on my report) that more preparation is needed before going ahead with meetings and joint discussion, especially considering current RVM staffing limitations and the fact that fire season is 6-7 months away.

Perhaps foolishly, I have decided to attempt to lay out the issues in hope of fostering understanding.  My qualifications: (1) Pet owner – currently 2 cats, with a history of many others.  (2)  Professional training and responsibility for both public and employee safety and preparedness.  (3)  Six years of involvement in various relevant RVM resident activities and organizations.

This article is based primarily on my own knowledge, ignorance and opinions.  I do not pretend, and do not want, to speak for RVM or for the residents as a group.  The intention is to present the issues, as I see them, so that readers can develop more informed opinions of their own and carry out more effective communication.  The article is long (especially including the appendices), partly because I am a wordy writer, but mostly because it is a complex subject with many components.  I hope you will read it.

Note:  This article addresses pets and companion animals, fully trained service dogs may be an exception.

 

External sources:

https://training.fema.gov/emiweb/downloads/is10comp.pdf  FEMA Course:  Animals in Disasters, Module A  Awareness and Preparation

https://www.redcross.org/get-help/how-to-prepare-for-emergencies/pet-disaster-preparedness.html
American Red Cross

https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/make-disaster-plan-your-pets
Humane Society

https://thecomplement.info/2021/09/14/pet-preparedness/
by Victoria Gorrell, based on https://www.ready.gov/pets

Evacuations and Pets

Most of us have had the experience of combining two good ideas or actions, only to find out that the combination produces more problems than obvious benefits.  Will this be the case with proposed evacuation of pets and pet owners in response to a wildfire threat to RVM?

Right Thing #1:  Having pets.  There is abundant evidence that people with pets are, on average, more mentally, physically, and socially healthy.  Most retirement and care facilities encourage permanent or surrogate pets.

Right Thing #2:  Emergency preparedness and disaster response.  People, organizations, and communities that have plans and equipment to deal with dangerous and disruptive events are better positioned to survive and recover than are those without preparation.

What about emergency preparedness with pets included in the mix?  Well, that can get a little tricky.  This article looks at some of the issues at Rogue Valley Manor, a pet-friendly retirement community that is working to improve its level of emergency preparedness.

Background:  In September of 2020, the Almeda fire forced a first-ever evacuation of RVM.  At that time there was no recommended response option but to leave the campus (although some residents chose not to do so).  The evacuation was accomplished successfully, with no resident or staff losses or injuries.  An immense amount of credit is due to RVM management and staff for accomplishing this, much of which had to be improvised on the fly.

However, there were many lessons learned.  Communication was a problem.  The total evacuation required several hours – if the fire had continued moving north with the speed and intensity it demonstrated in the Ashland to Talent stretch, the outcome might have been far less favorable.  Occupants of the licensed facilities were transported substantial distances – successfully, but that is not the most desirable scenario.  Residents were scattered widely, with many finding refuge at the Country Club, some at the Expo, and others farther north or just car-camping.

RVM, in consultation with the Medford Fire Department, has since improved fire safety on campus and developed a different plan for responding to wildfire evacuation alerts.  This plan (https://thecomplement.info/2021/08/23/rvm-campus-evacuation-guidelines-for-fire/) is based on the assessment of the high-rise (tower) buildings as being able to provide protection against any wildfire threat.  The present plan is that, in the event of a wildfire evacuation alert, residents will have the option of self-evacuating off-site, or of sheltering in one of the towers.  Residents in the licensed facilities will be sheltered in the towers, and tower residents will remain in their apartments unless they choose to self-evacuate.  The unadvisable option to stay in place rather than evacuating anywhere will still exist.

OPINION:  This is a major improvement in emergency management planning.  It leaves in place all of the options that residents had before, and adds the potential for providing local shelter with travel of minimal time or distance.  This is not only a huge benefit for those in the care facilities, but also for the substantial number of “independent living” residents who have limitations that would interfere with an effective self-evacuation.

Published guidance so far is preliminary.  Actual implementation in case of a fire evacuation alert will require that locally-sheltering cottage residents be safely moved to the towers and accommodated there, while other residents are concurrently self-evacuating.  In addition, there may need to be preparations for secondary effects on tower residents (discussed in Appendix A).

Provision has to be made for transport and accommodation for independent and for less-than-fully independent residents, and for residents in either of these categories who have pets.  Residents may require assistance personally, or only with regard to managing their pets.

This is where pets and preparedness collide head-on.  In an emergency, resources may be severely limited – from space on the bus to space in the shelter room to the time available to make the transition, and then to the staff time available for assistance and oversight.  It can be, at least for a while, a zero-sum game – resources allocated to one group or purpose are subtracted from those available to another.

ASSUMPTIONS (= evidence-based opinions):  RVM tower shelters will not be typical evacuee shelters, but will be protective bunkers, potentially in the midst of the fire.  Therefore:

  • The entire facility will be under the control of an Incident Commander.
  • In addition to resident evacuees, the towers will have to accommodate RVM staff who remain on site.
  • Traffic and space around the buildings and on access routes must be strictly controlled to permit access by firefighters and emergency equipment.
  • Due to external hazards (fire, smoke, heat) the building is likely to be locked down for an extended period.
  • The towers are likely to be on emergency power, if the generators can be protected from the fire. This will have multiple implications for both the permanent residents and the evacuees.

Opinions/Assumptions about animal control (a combination of “what I would do if I were in control” and “what I read in the preparedness literature”):

  • Animals and people need to be segregated so that nobody is in proximity to an animal unless they choose to be, and so that animals do not pose a sanitation threat (e.g., to food facilities).
  • Animals need to be confined/controlled at all times. The standard is use of kennels or carriers; whether securely tethered is an acceptable substitute is a local decision.
  • Animals not confined or tethered need to be managed by a handler with the knowledge and ability necessary to maintain control.
  • Housepets need to be housed indoors and where their owners can be with them, in the interest of both humane treatment and owner satisfaction.

The requirements outlined above will be somewhat challenging under conditions of accommodation, but may be particularly problematic in the mobilization and transportation stages of an evacuation.  Appendix A, attached, outlines some of the specific issues that need to be considered in developing the overall emergency plan.

The details of RVM evacuation procedures are still in development, to be completed before the next fire season.  As the legally responsible body, RVM must decide where to place the boundary between pet support and pet control, and how to implement or enforce it.  If possible this should be done with the input and understanding of pet owners – but it has to be done, and it needs to be done with an eye to what may go wrong rather than an optimistic assumption of normality.  It is essential to have plans and procedures that are clear, simple, and easily followed.  Complex arrangements or finely nuanced alternative actions for various situations will be unworkable.

The bottom line for pet owners is to do advance planning and preparation.  There are the three options: do nothing, go nowhere, and take the risks inherent in that; if you have or can get transportation, evacuate off-site either to a specific destination or just to anywhere else; or take advantage of shelter opportunities in the towers.  It would be ideal to be prepared to take advantage of any of those, and very reckless not to be prepared for at least one.

Potential problem resolution:

Potential conflicts need to be avoided or resolved in the interest of both effectiveness of emergency response and overall community harmony.  There are some possible approaches for doing so; all involve resident action or interaction.

An important preparation is to identify the number and type of pets likely to shelter in the towers (those whose owners do not plan to stay home or evacuate off-site).  Also, it would be very useful to identify pet-owners likely to need assistance in case of an evacuation, and solicit volunteers to serve as helpers.

Policy and procedure formulation should involve dialog with residents (both pet owners and non-pet owners), especially those likely to remain on campus either of necessity or as volunteers.

Organizing transport and drop-off at the towers for pet-owners not able to take their animal on the RVM evacuation vehicles could speed the process for all concerned, if adequately controlled.

Identification of tower residents who would be willing to serve as hosts or pet-sitters for evacuated animals (and possibly owners) – either in general or for specific acquaintances – could take some of the pressure off the common facilities.

Formation of a cadre of resident volunteers (possibly former pet owners) to monitor and support the pet containment facilities would facilitate meeting pet and human needs without burdening staff.

Educating pet owners about the needs and requirement, once they are established.

 

Appendix A to Problems of Pets and Preparedness

The Pet Evacuation Dilemma

Animal behavior under stressful conditions –unfamiliar surroundings, close proximity of unfamiliar humans and other animals, and a general atmosphere of distress — are unpredictable and potentially dangerous.  Incident Commanders and emergency planners do not want dog fights, dog bites, cat scratches, pursuit of loose animals, or conflicts between residents over pet management.  In addition, as identified by FEMA, pet allergies and phobias are an issue.  These are all at best distractions, and at worst the cause of disruptions that could seriously interfere with the primary mission of incident response.

Transportation issues

  • It may be permissible for securely contained small animals (cats, small dogs) to be transported on vehicles with non-pet-owners, but it should be avoided if possible. Animals on leash, if accepted, need to be transported separately – from people, and from each other.
  • Large animal containers may be difficult to transport, either in terms of the people required, or of the vehicle.
  • Animals may require more control and effort than their owners can provide [comment: two of my neighbors have been pulled off their feet by their dogs – one sustaining a serious injury – and my late wife was bitten by a resident’s dog while the owner was holding its leash].
  • Issues of traffic control, especially near the towers, will be important in terms of maintaining emergency access. This will be particularly the case if it is necessary to supplement RVM vehicles with private volunteer transport.
  • Guides, and possibly assistants, will be needed at both the loading and unloading ends of the transportation.

 

Appendix B:  to Problems of Pets and Preparedness

Planning and Preparation for Local Evacuation

Supplies needed for evacuated pets are well-identified in the on-line references cited, and in draft RVM guidance.  Further attention needs to devoted to human evacuation preparations, however.  For an on-site evacuation, cottage residents need to know what to take with them for themselves (e.g., pillow, blanket?) as well as for the animals.

The full-service go-bag recommended for disaster and off-site evacuation is not required — basic shelter, food, water and sanitation can be expected in the towers.

Residents should have basics such as medicines, masks (for smoke), contact information and identification, phones, money/credit cards, and convenience items (e.g. toilet articles).

The question of what else might be required or desirable in a local evacuation depends very much on expected conditions in the towers.  Although the final decision is the responsibility of the resident, basic information is needed for informed decision making.  For an on-site evacuation, cottage residents need to know what to take with them for themselves (e.g., pillow, blanket?) as well as for the animals.

Accommodation issues:

For an on-site evacuation, cottage residents need to know what to take with them for themselves (e.g., pillow, blanket?) as well as for the animals.

Tower environment considerations: Resident volunteers who assist in preparation or response, as well as staff, need to understand the probable and possible effects of going on emergency (local generator) power.  This applies to managing tower residents as well as evacuees, and will probably be different for each building.  What facilities, utilities and services can be counted on, and what will be the progression of loss if “load shedding” is required?

  • Emergency lights and outlets – where? Will some be reserved for those with medical equipment needs?
  • Will elevators run? How many?  Where?  If limited, how will use be managed?
  • Cooling and air filtration?   Will it be reliably available
  • Food storage and preparation? Meal provision?
  • Rest rooms (auto-flush toilets, water faucets)
  • Water pumps (potable and sanitary water circulation)?

 

To download a PDF of this article, Click Here

RPG Organization

/in

Map of North Village Areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

RPG Personnel

/in
To Download an Excel Spreadsheet of RPG Coordinator information, click here

 

Resident Preparedness Group (RPG)

Leadership Team, 8/9/21

RPG has restructured and enlarged its Leadership Team to achieve several objectives:

  • To expand the group’s diversity, experience, and capacity for task sharing;
  • To provide specific representation of Tower residents; and,
  • To allow some of our long-term members to take a well-earned break

Current Composition

Bob Buddemeier

Dan Curtis

Bob Berger (new resident; see bio below)

Teddie Hight (Manor Representative

Jim Macmillan (Plaza representative)

Ken Kelley

Scott Wetenkamp

 

Bob Walden (phasing out, but continuing to offer assistance in the transition)

Don Barry (phasing out, but continuing to offer assistance in the transition)

Dan Wagner (former member still contributing database efforts, reviews and advice)

 

 

 

Bob Berger Experience

Academic training focused on biochemistry, physiology and marine biology.  Work experience primarily involved in environmental toxicology.  Worked for private engineering and consulting firms, and public sanitation and drinking water agencies.  The last 9 years of my career provided regulatory/ legislative efforts for sanitation and drinking water agencies in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

No direct experience in emergency preparedness or management, but did complete Communities of Oakland Respond to Emergencies, CORE, training now identified as CERT  ( City of Oakland | Community Emergency Response Team Training [CERT]