Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan: Life after a Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster [1st ed.] 9783030493271, 9783030493288

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN ANIMALS AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan Life After a Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster Hazuki Kajiwara

Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems

Series Editor Leslie Irvine Department of Sociology University of Colorado Boulder Boulder, CO, USA

Because other species make up the economic, sociological, emotional, and moral fabric of society, they play important roles in countless social problems. Some criminal activities have connections to animal abuse and fighting. Income inequality and discrimination have historically influenced pet prohibitions in rental housing by disproportionately affecting residents with low incomes. Confined livestock operations, animal hoarding, dog bites, and zoonotic disease transmission have public health and environmental implications. Wildlife poaching and the illegal traffic in endangered species threaten conservation efforts and defy international law. Because animals lack voices and social power, they cannot attract attention to the social problems that involve them. Incorporating animals into the study of social problems provides a clearer understanding of what groups and individuals consider problematic, how problems emerge on the social landscape, and what solutions might address them. This series transforms the scholarly analysis of social problems by focusing on how animals contribute to and suffer from issues long considered uniquely human. For further information on the series and submitting your work, please get in touch with Leslie Irvine (University of Colorado Boulder, USA) at [email protected].

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15441

Hazuki Kajiwara

Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan Life After a Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster

Hazuki Kajiwara Rikkyo University Toshima, Tokyo, Japan

Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems ISBN 978-3-030-49327-1 ISBN 978-3-030-49328-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: jdphotography/Moment/Getty Images This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The idea of writing an entire book about the tsunami, Fukushima meltdown and its impact on animals actually came to me from a chance encounter at the Kentucky Horse Park near Lexington, Kentucky, in 2015, a place where there were beautiful racehorses under blue skies, nearly the opposite of the conditions around Fukushima or other places hit by tsunami in March 2011. In the park’s clubhouse, I happened to be sitting beside a man who introduced himself as a semi-retired lawyer. After a discussion about law firms in television shows, he asked me about my doctoral dissertation research that I had presented at a nearby Eastern Kentucky University a few days earlier. Having listened to my overview of what had happened to companion animals in Japan following the tsunami, he associated Chernobyl with Fukushima and said very seriously. Unfortunately, nuclear accidents will surely occur someday, somewhere in the world. So your research would be referenced in even 50 or 100 years. Do your best, write good thesis and then publish it in English so that people around the world can read it.

Although his comments may have been little more than polite encouragement for a fledging Ph.D. student in sociology, I was strongly moved that this otherwise ordinary individual halfway around the world from Japan knew about Fukushima and felt that my particular story of animals and their guardians under such circumstances was worth telling. That simple exchange gave me the conviction that my research about natural v

vi

PREFACE

and nuclear disaster was relevant not only to Japan, but also to understanding the situation wherever similar disasters might occur. So, in some way this book is the outcome of a momentary encounter with a stranger many kilometers from home. His words were kept encouraging me always during the writing. After graduating in the late 1980s from Tokyo’s Hosei University worked as a free-lance journalist for over two decades. I wrote about working women, foreign workers, child abuse, teenage prostitution, and many other social issues. I was able to travel overseas and to complete several novels. Although I had been interested in animals as a child, my family lived in company housing which did not allow pets. My life as an animal’s guardian began as an adult; one stormy summer night on a street in downtown Tokyo I came across a kitten crying in a cardboard box. Since then, my husband and I are always running a mixed family of humans with non-human animals, as there has been a constant supply of life-threatening kittens or adult cats from the streets. In 2000 I formed the Pet Lovers Meeting, a small nonprofit organization that sought to help people grieving the loss of a pet. The previous year, my cat had passed away by lymphoma after prolonged chemotherapy. At that time, few Japanese concerned themselves with such grief. Formed as a self-help group with others whom I had met at the animal hospital while their pets were receiving chemotherapy, the Meeting sought to provide an empathetic space where those who had lost a pet could share their experiences. Finding inspiration in the work of the Pet Bereavement Support Service run by the Blue Cross in the UK, the group established a “pet loss hotline” in 2003 which had received 1300 calls as of January 2020. About 40% of the callers mentioned dissatisfaction with the way veterinarians had communicated with them. To improve the situation, we began in 2005 to offer veterinary students the opportunity at their veterinary college to engage in a simulated session with a pet’s guardian. Volunteers act as pet owners with a stuffed dog or cat in a veterinary medical communication class. After a role-playing session, the volunteers give useful feedback to the students. All activities of the Pet Lovers Meeting continue to be conducted by volunteers. I have been living with animals for a long time and working to support Pet Loss grief, but never wrote about animals as my job. Companion animals existed only in the territory that was set aside as my private life. I studied as informal audit student Medieval philosophy and Death and life studies at the Uehiro Division for Death & Life Studies and Practical

PREFACE

vii

Ethics at the University of Tokyo from 2007 to 2011. Still, it had only been personal enjoyment or interests. However, that way of organizing the world in my mind was changed dramatically as I viewed the live coverage given to the March 2011 tsunami, and then over the days and months that followed. First came the news about humans, not only the graphic accounts the widespread destruction visited on many towns and hamlets and their inhabitants who had been swept away, but also remarkable stories of how individuals had survived. Later information about pets and other animals began to appear. Many dogs and cats had been washed away along with their owners, but others had been left to wander around— many within 20 km of the nuclear power plants that were still in the process of melting down in Fukushima. Thousands of livestock animals left behind were simply starving to death. There were also moving stories of individuals who had survived with their companion animals. Complex emotions began to swirl up inside me as I came to know the harsh way in which many animals and their guardians had been treated. Consequently, my perceptions regarding pets changed and I came increasingly to the conviction that animals were no longer a matter of one’s own private territory. I came increasingly to the conviction that the situation facing those animals and their owners was a social problem—a set of challenges that extended far beyond the ability of individuals to overcome on their own. While many who had lost a pet were experiencing various forms of grief, those whose pets had survived were struggling to look after their animals. The coverage given those matters sharpened my interest in companion animals and the provisions for their social status in Japan. Animals are an important social issue that needed to be addressed. I was initially overwhelmed by where this new outlook was taking me. I did not know anything at all about the categories, the labels—indeed, the vocabulary—and the methods I would require in order to frame the “new world.” Although I had worked as a professional writer for more than 20 years, I lacked the tools I needed—a reality that led me in 2012 to enroll in the Graduate School of Sociology at Rikkyo University. Over the next six years I undertook research for a doctoral dissertation focused on the victims of 2011 tsunami who had companion animals and their struggle to maintain a relationship with those animals. This volume is based on that dissertation which was submitted late in 2017. The Japanese version of this book was published in 2019 and is included in the list of references at the end of this chapter (Kajiwara

viii

PREFACE

2019a). However, it should be noted that this book is not just a translation of the Japanese version; containing new information, it is more like an updated second edition. I must end by expressing gratitude to the many who have helped me along the way. My greatest appreciation goes to the guardians, the animal rescue volunteers, and other individuals who so generously shared their experiences with me. The book is based mainly on the narratives they have provided. The stories told in their own words surprised me, saddened me, but most importantly encouraged me. Sometimes your humor amid the many trials and tribulations made me laugh, and your resilience was always inspired me. Although I cannot mention each by your names here, your collective voice rings daily in my ears and will continue to occupy a special place in my heart. Along similar lines, I thank all the students at the Graduate School of Sociology at Rikkyo University, conference participants, and others who have given not only valuable feedback but the encouragement needed to continue with the interviews and other research which went into my Ph.D. thesis and this volume. The International Conference Minding Animals 4 in Mexico in 2018 was a great turning point for me. Aside from receiving an award for the best student presentation, I was able to meet Professor Leslie Irvine from the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado. Her studies on animals in disasters (Irvine 2009), the relationship between the homeless people and their pets (Irvine 2013), and other topics have been beacons guiding my research and providing frameworks for conducting sociological research on human-animal studies. I was very honored when she invited me to submit the findings from my doctoral research for this Palgrave series on Studies in Animals and Social Problems. In that connection I need to mention that many human-animal studies experts have provided insight and encouragement. The list is far from perfect, but I especially thank to the following scholars. At a conference in New Zealand in 2019, I was able to meet people who experienced the Canterbury earthquake in 2010 and 2011. The conference director, Professor Annie Potts of the College of Arts at the University of Canterbury, illuminated the road before me with her book about the animals and their guardians affected by the Canterbury earthquake (Potts and Gadenne 2014). Doctor Michał Piotr Pr˛egowski at the Warsaw University of Technology kindly provided the opportunity to write a chapter to a volume

PREFACE

ix

he edited on companion animals in various cultures (Mouer and Kajiwara 2016). Marie-Jose Enders-Slegers, Professor of Anthrozoology in the Faculty of Psychology at the Open University in Heerlen (the Netherlands), shared not only her vast knowledge but also her experience regarding the challenges of doing Ph.D. research as a middle-aged academic. She continues to serve the discipline as the President of the International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations (IAHAIO) (see IAHAIO, n.d.). John Ensminger, author and editor of books on service and police dogs (e.g., Ensminger 2010, 2011), assured me of the value of my book even when my self-confidence wavered. His practical advice and overall support as a friend has been irreplaceable. It is surely a lucky blessing to have a fair and thoughtful supervisor for graduate students. I was one of those lucky ones. Special thanks go to Professor Emeritus Yasuhito Kinoshita in Department of Sociology at Rikkyo University who retired to be a Specially Appointed Professor of Sociology at the Graduate School of Nursing St. Luke’s International University in Tokyo. While at Rikkyo he taught me to seek nobility through the diligent and honest hard work that serious research requires. He also shared with me his deep interest in critical realism and introduced me to many useful resources. I also owe a special thanks to Monash University’s Professor Emeritus Ross Mouer. Professor Mouer, who is well known for his research on paradigms for conceptualizing Japanese society, social stratification, and work organization. He first taught me about academic writing at Rikkyo University in 2014 and then later supervised me as a friend and now as a colleague. My appreciation and respect for Professor Mouer cannot be adequately expressed in any language. Suffice it to mention only that in formulating my research I often ask myself, “What would Professor Mouer do? (WWMD)”. Even though I don’t have a habit to think the better known “What would Jesus do? (WWJD)”. He has been discussing my research, advising on how to structure my arguments, and proofreading final texts for over five years. Thanks to him, I have come this far. Without his guidance and persistent help this book would not have been possible. With regard to the editing of this specific volume, a further thank you is owing to Sarah Pemberton who is completing a master’s degree in editing and publishing at the University of Melbourne. Her proofreading in the final processes of this manuscript has been invaluable.

x

PREFACE

I have received ongoing support from Palgrave Macmillan, especially from the editor, Ms. Mary Al-Sayed, and the editorial assistant, Ms. Madison Allums. Thank you both for not abandoning me and this project along the way. Finally, a special thanks is owing to my husband and our two cats. Thank you for always filling my life with liveliness, surprises, love, and some amount of confusion. It goes without saying that much of our research would not be possible without outside funding. Financial support from the following Foundations are gratefully acknowledged: the Japan Post Insurance Research Foundation (2012), the Rikkyo University Special Fund for Research (2013 and 2015), the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education Research (2015 and 2016), and a Rikkyo University Publishing Grant (2018). The following paper or essay shares a part of data with this book; Kajiwara (2016, 2019b) and Mouer and Kajiwara (2016). Tokyo, Japan April 2020

Hazuki Kajiwara

References Literature in English Ensminger, J. J. (2010). Service and therapy dogs in american society: Science, law and the evolution of canine caregivers. Springfield, IL, USA: Charles C. Thomas. Ensminger, J. J. (2011). Police and military dogs: Criminal detection, forensic evidence, and judicial admissibility. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/Police-and-Military-Dogs-Cri minal-Detection-Forensic-Evidence-and-Judicial/Ensminger/p/book/978 0367866556. International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations (IAHAIO). (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2020, from http://iahaio.org/. Irvine, L. (2009). Filling the ark: Animal welfare in disasters. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Irvine, L. (2013). My dog always eats first: Homeless people and their animals. Boulder, CO, USA: Lynne Rienner. Kajiwara, H. (2016). Human-animal interaction in post-tsunami Japan. Humanimalia, 7 (2), 84–108.

PREFACE

xi

Mouer, R., & Kajiwara, H. (2016). Strong bonds: Companion animals and their future in post-tsunami Japan. In M. P. Pr˛egowski (Ed.), Companion animals in everyday life: Situating human-animal engagement within cultures (pp. 201–215). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pet Bereavement Support Service. (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2020, from https://www.bluecross.org.uk/pet-bereavement-and-pet-loss. Pet Lovers Meeting. (n.d.). Our activity. Retrieved January 30, 2020, from https://www.ddtune.com/plm/eng-aboutus/our-activity. Potts, A., & Gadenne, D. (2014). Animals in emergencies: Learning from the Christchurch earthquakes. Christchurch, New Zealand: Canterbury University Press. Pr˛egowski, M. P. (Ed.). (2016). Companion animals in everyday life: Situating human-animal engagement within cultures. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Literature in Japanese Kajiwara, H. (2019a). Saigai to Konpanion Animaru no Shakaigaku: Hihanteki Jitsuzairon to Human-Animal Studies de yomitoku Higashinihon daishinsai [The sociology of disaster and companion animals: A human-animal studies and critical realism approach to the great East Japan earthquake]. Tokyo: Daisan Shokan. Kajiwara, H. (2019b). Saigai-ji, petto to issho ni ikinokoru ni wa [How to survive with your pet in a disaster]. Ronza. Retrieved January 30, 2020, from https:// webronza.asahi.com/national/articles/2019111700002.html.

Praise Page Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan

“Hazuki Kajiwara’s Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan is a meticulous sociological inquiry into the day-to-day experiences of those who survived the 2011 earthquake in the Japanese region of T¯ohoku, and the subsequent Fukushima nuclear power plant failure. Based on 25 research field trips spanning 5 years, this book gives a thorough presentation of the social dynamic between survivors, their companion animals, and the general public, and highlights the emotional and psychological importance of the interspecies bond. Kajiwara’s work is also timely— serving as a reminder that the negative social outcomes of natural, ecological or public health disasters are often universal.” —Michał Piotr Pr˛egowski, Assistant Professor, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland, and author of Companion Animals in Everyday Life: Situating Human-Animal Engagement within Cultures (Palgrave, 2016) “By advancing the concept of bonding rights through the lived experiences of survivors of the 2011 T¯ ohoku earthquake and tsunami, Dr. Hazuki Kajiwara places companion animals at the centre of social, cultural, and political complexities of disaster response. Her work offers an insightful perspective on a unique event that continues to affect animals and people to present day.” —Joshua Trigg, Adjunct Research Fellow, Central Queensland University, Australia, and author of “An Animal Just Like Me: The Importance of Preserving the Identities of Companion-Animal Owners in Disaster xiii

xiv

PRAISE PAGE SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS IN JAPAN

Contexts” (with Kirrilly Thompson, Bradley Smith and Pauleen Bennett, in the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(1), (26–40)) “Hazuki Kajiwara writes with great eloquence and empathy about the harrowing experiences for people and their companion animals following the 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster in Japan. She offers an unprecedented and powerful analysis of the ways in which paradoxical understandings of animals in Japanese culture affected emergency and post-disaster responses involving companion animals. Her book provides a vital new contribution to global knowledge on human-animal relationships during emergencies, and compels us to demand greater protection in law for all animals caught in disasters.” —Annie Potts, Professor and Director of the New Zealand Centre for Human-Animal Studies, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, and co-author of Animals in Emergencies: Learning from the Christchurch Earthquakes (2014) “A ground-breaking study offering a unique Asian societal perspective on the plight of guardians and their companion animals in two of Japan’s catastrophic disasters. Hazuki sensitively explores guardian stories, courageously holds government officials accountable for the oppression of the human-animal bond during crises, and soundly argues for the concept of ‘bonding rights.’ A must-read book that bolsters, stimulates, and advances an important discourse on our obligations to nonhuman animals dependent on our care.” —Cheryl Travers, BSc, MPH, PhD Scholar, University of Wollongong, Australia, and author of “Companion Animals in Natural Disasters: A Scoping Review of Scholarly Sources” (with Chris Degeling and Melanie Rock, in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 20(4), (324–343)) “This volume comes at a critical juncture with the coronavirus demanding social distancing and people, especially the aged, seeking companionship. Dr. Kajiwara’s research deals with the aftermath of the 2011 tsunami in Japan—an event which forced a different kind of distancing on its victims, many of whom are also aged. Her take on the human-animal relationship in capitalist societies will reorient our thinking about animal welfare and the role of animals in human affairs.” —Ross Mouer, Professor Emeritus, Monash University, Australia, and editor of Globalizing Japan: Striving to Engage the World (2015)

Contents

Part I Introduction 1

Japanese Animals in Calamity 1.1 The Impact of Disasters on Companion Animals 1.2 Companion Animals in Japan 1.3 The March 11, 2011, Earthquake 1.4 Disasters and Animals 1.5 Overview of the Research References

3 3 8 13 18 22 24

2

Methodology 2.1 Semi-structured Interviews 2.2 Observations 2.3 Quantitative Survey 2.4 Additional Fieldwork 2.5 Ethical Considerations References

33 34 37 38 38 39 40

Part II 3

The Tsunami in Iwate and Miyagi Prefectures

Everything I Did Was for Baron 3.1 Companion Animals as “ Kasugai”

43 45 xv

xvi

4

CONTENTS

3.2 How My Dog Saved My Life 3.3 The Sudden Exclusion 3.4 Community and Pets in Temporary Housing 3.5 The Death of Companion Animals 3.6 The Pet-Owner Relationship References

47 50 55 58 60 61

Surviving with Companion Animals 4.1 Four Aspects of Guardian Behavior 4.1.1 Confronting the System 4.1.2 Making Alternative Arrangements 4.1.3 Returning to a Destroyed Residence 4.1.4 Suffering in Silence 4.2 Companion Animals First References

63 64 64 73 79 84 86 87

Part III 5

The Nuclear Disaster in Fukushima 91 92 93

I Have Lost the Meaning to Live 5.1 Background 5.2 Plans for Her Own Farm House 5.3 Drinking Well Water Without Understanding the Situation 5.4 The Animals I Left Behind 5.5 Hell with the Animals or Without the Animals 5.6 Directionless References

94 97 101 106 108

6

Making Choices Regarding Companion Animals 6.1 Three Choices for Guardians 6.1.1 Evacuating with Companion Animals 6.1.2 Evacuating Without Companion Animals 6.1.3 Resisting Evacuation References

111 111 113 123 130 134

7

Complexities in Fukushima 7.1 Complexities in Fukushima

135 135

CONTENTS

Essential Matters When Nuclear Power Disasters Occur 7.2.1 The Lack of Information and the Safety Myths 7.2.2 The Uncertainty of Reconstructing One’s Life 7.2.3 The Uncertainty of “Scientific” Discourse on Radioactivity 7.3 A Rural Philosophy for the Happiness of Companion Animals References

xvii

7.2

Part IV

137 138 141 144 149 155

Social Structures and Causal Mechanisms

8

Applying Critical Realism to Real Life 8.1 Distinguishing Between the Two Disasters 8.2 Actual Domain: Oppression 8.3 Real Domain: Structural Mechanisms 8.3.1 Trivializing Companion Animals 8.3.2 Vague Notions of Dobutsu Aigo References

161 163 165 167 167 168 175

9

Advancing the Notion of “Bonding Rights” 9.1 Fitting Bonding Rights into Theory 9.1.1 Japanese “Love and Protection for Animals [ dobutsu aigo]” Theory 9.1.2 Utilitarianism 9.1.3 Expanding the Human Rights of Guardians 9.1.4 Animal Rights Theory 9.1.5 Animal Welfare Theory 9.1.6 Other Ethics Theories 9.1.7 Animal Citizenship Theory 9.2 A Preliminary Response to Anticipated Skepticism 9.2.1 About Bonding Rights as a Concept 9.3 Bonding Rights in Practice References

177 177 178 178 178 179 179 179 180 182 182 183 185

xviii

CONTENTS

10

Conclusion References

Index

187 193 195

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1

Fig. 1.2

Fig. 1.3

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. 7.1

Registered dogs in Japan, 1960–2017 (Source Compiled by the author from Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (n.d.). Inu no toroku tosu to yobo chusha tosu-to no nenji betsu suii (Showa 35-nen ~ Heisei 29-nendo) [Annual transition of the number of registration and vaccination of dogs, 1965–2017 fiscal year]) Articles about pet loss grief (Source Compiled by the author from the Asahi Shinbun’s database “Kikuzo II Visual” and the Yomiuri Shinbun’s database “Yomidasu Rekishikan” from 1995 to 2018) Japan and the Tohoku region’s three affected prefectures (Source Made by the author from Japan Meteorological Agency (2011: n.p.). The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake: first report) Map of the evacuation route of Hitomi Sato (Made by the author from interview data) Map of the complicated evacuation routes: Case of Mr. JF/Mrs. JF (Made by the author from interview data) Map of the complicated evacuation route: Case of Mrs. CCF (Made by the author from interview data) Map of the complicated evacuation routes: Case of Mr. CF (Made by the author from interview data) Conceptual diagram of evacuation instruction area as of April 1, fiscal year 2017 (Created by the author based on the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry 2017)

10

11

14 100 119 122 133

148

xix

xx

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 7.2

Fig. 8.1 Fig. 9.1

Living spaces of dogs and cats (Compiled by the author from a questionnaire survey by the author herself and Japan Pet Food Association Japan Pet Food Association [2012a, b]) Structure of Japanese “The Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo]” (Created by author) A mapping of theories related to animals (Made by the author)

151 174 181

List of Photos

Photo 3.1 Photo 4.1

Photo 4.2

Photo 5.1

Temporary Housing A complex in Miyagi Prefecture (Source Author’s fieldwork on August 10, 2013) Owner rescued by a Self-Defense Force helicopter along with her Akita Inu and cat (Worried about her cat getting lost, she watches over throughout the day the cat in temporary housing A) (Source Author’s fieldwork on September 4, 2013) Companion animals living in temporary housing after surviving the tsunami (Mrs. SM and her husband believe that their companion animal [Jody; the bottom left] saved them. So does Ms. KM [Lulu; the bottom right]) (Source Author’s fieldwork on September 4, 13 and 26, 2013; August 25, 2014) The evacuation zone in Fukushima (Volunteers walk shelter dogs daily near the decontamination radioactive waste bags in the evacuation zone in Fukushima [upper panel], a gate that separates the “difficult-to-return zone” in Fukushima [bottom left], and monitoring post that measures the radiation dose in air for 24 hours [bottom right]) (Source Author’s fieldwork on July 29, 2015, August 24, 2015, and May 18, 2016)

44

70

77

102

xxi

xxii

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 6.1

Photo 6.2

Photo 7.1

Cats and dogs in the evacuation zone (Lara’s guardian, Mr. JF comes to the barn for feeding her every day [bottom right]) (Source Author’s fieldwork on September 14, 2013 [upper left], on July 29, 2015 [upper right and bottom left] and September 15, 2014 [bottom right]) A dog that has been leashed in an evacuation zone ever since the nuclear disaster occurred (Source Author’s fieldwork on September 14, 2013) Massive numbers of radioactive waste one ton bags have been piling up everywhere, the situation has not changed even in 2020 (Source Author’s fieldwork on July 29, 2015 [upper panel]; May 18, 2016 [bottom panel])

118

127

143

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 2.1

The disposal of animals taken to animal control agencies (2017) Breakdown of the interviewees

12 35

xxiii

PART I

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

Japanese Animals in Calamity

1.1

The Impact of Disasters on Companion Animals

In 2011, a tsunami hit the northeast coast of Japan, resulting in the loss of many lives and the explosion of a nuclear power plant in Fukushima. The Japanese government has since begun to seriously consider how it can better prepare for another such natural disaster. In 2019, attention focused on the likelihood of a second tsunami being caused by a shift of the tectonic plates in the Nankai Trough. The Japanese government is warning that there is a considerable chance of the Nankai Trough causing further magnitude-8 or -9 earthquakes and high tsunamis that would affect the entire south of Japan (the area from Tokyo area to Kyushu). Indeed, the chances of a magnitude-7 earthquake hitting the Tokyo metropolitan area within next 30 years are as high as 70% (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, n.d., see also Hurst 2019). The 2011 tsunami was unprecedented in Japan, and the government has since learned from the experience. In 2013, the Ministry of the Environment announced “Disaster Measures Guideline for Pet Relief,” Japan’s first disaster guidelines for pets. Although it is not official legislation, local governments are expected to make disaster management plans according to guidelines. These 2013 guidelines strongly recommend the principle of Doko hinan (evacuation with pets).

© The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_1

3

4

H. KAJIWARA

However, the guidelines did not function well after the Kumamoto earthquake that occurred in 2016. The Ministry of the Environment consequently ordered that the guidelines be reviewed and revised. An investigative committee, consisting of ten experts and nine bureaucrats appointed by the Ministry of Environment, convened on August 2, 2017, September 27, 2017, and January 18, 2018. Brief summaries of each meeting are available to the public online (Ministry of the Environment, n.d.). In March 2018, the Japanese government released a revised edition of its conclusions entitled “Disaster Preparedness Guideline for Humans and Pets.” One of the reports that emerged from the hearings reveals the bureaucrats in the Ministry and Cabinet Office’s concerns for and general outlook on disasters and pets. One government official commented at the meeting helps on September 27, 2017, with the following statement: When we use the term “Doko hinan” [evacuation with pets] there is an assumption made by the owners of pets that they should be able to live together with their pets. Would not that imply that some kind of legal right is being established? This guideline should not be used for the claim of the rights. (Ministry of the Environment 2017a: 10)

Any personally identifiable information of the bureaucrat who spoke was not disclosed in the report, a common practice in Japan. Another anonymous bureaucrat commented: If pets are accorded some kind of rights during an evacuation, their owners will insist that they be able to bring their pets with them to live in refugee accommodations. I think such an outcome should be avoided. (Ministry of the Environment 2017a: 18)

Dr. Shiro Muranaka, Vice President of Japan Veterinary Medical Association, and chairperson for the Review Meeting for the Revision of “Disaster Measures Guideline for Pet Relief,” stated the following at the first meeting on August 12, 2017: If the term “Doko hinan” [evacuation with pets] is used to justify the owners’ rights, we will be in trouble. (Ministry of the Environment 2017b: 7)

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

5

These comments provide some insight into the general outlook of the Japanese government in its reluctance to grant rights for pets when planning for evacuations. When guardians and their animals are required to evacuate during a disaster, the regulations regarding disaster response guidelines made by those in position of authority greatly affect future prospects. Moreover, these laws reflect how much society values humananimal relationships and animal rights. In other words, they reflect how society colonizes animals. The 2018 version of the guidelines that has been updated title, “The Disaster Response Guidelines on Human and Pets” (Ministry of the Environment 2018), emphasizes the following four points. (i) The self-help by the guardians is basic in disaster response (ibid.: 7); (ii) evacuating with companion animals does not mean staying with companion animals in the refugee accommodation (ibid.: 5, 45); (iii) ensuring the place of refuge by the guardians themselves (ibid.: 17); (iv) pet support provided by the government agencies is not for the animal selves, but for the guardians as human victims (ibid.: 9). Thus, the guidelines declare the administrative support basically saves humans so guardians should not expect public support for pets. The owners are responsible for protecting themselves and their pets by self-help effort. Furthermore, it states that the measures against pets that are carried out by government agencies in the event of a disaster are not for the animals themselves, but from the viewpoint of saving the owners who are the victims. It could be said that the disaster management policy of Japan has become more anthropocentric since the 2011 tsunami and proceeding disasters. As mentioned, these guidelines came about after the impact of the 2001 tsunami. On March 11, 2011, the northeast coast of Japan was struck by a huge tsunami that affected many people and their animals. This magnitude-9.0 earthquake, officially referred to as the Great East Japan Earthquake, is the largest in the recorded history of Japan (Japan Meteorological Agency 2013: 3). United States Geological Survey ranked this earthquake as the fourth largest earthquake in the history of world (USGS n.d.). People with pets were refused entry to many communal shelters, and some were forced to abandon their pets. People unwilling to give up their pets often had to survive outside the emergency support frameworks established by government authorities and voluntary groups. Nine years after the disaster, that state of affairs continues to plague those who lost animals or who are struggling to maintain their relationship with their

6

H. KAJIWARA

separated pet. After the Great East Japan Earthquake, many Japanese scholars began investigating the effects of a disaster. However, few studies have specifically considered the effects for guardians and their companion animals. The interdisciplinary field known as Human-Animal Studies (HAS) explores the relationship between humans and other animals. Emerging in the 1990s, predominantly in the Western world, HAS is becoming accepted as a subfield by sociologists. Indeed, in 2002, animals and society was officially given status as a section within the American Sociological Association. DeMello (2012) defines HAS as “an interdisciplinary field that explores the spaces that animals occupy in human social and cultural worlds and the interactions humans have with them” (DeMello 2012: 2). One particular area of interest for those engaged in HAS is the power structure and cultural relations that define interactions between humans and other animals. HAS scholars regularly deal with other aspects pertaining to the experiences of humans living with animals. Research associated with HAS includes a broad range of disciplines such as psychology, veterinary medicine, and law. However, the research in this volume reports on how guardians and their companion animals experienced the aforementioned disaster from a sociological perspective. Guardians and their companion animals face enormous difficulties in disasters, which raise a number of practical, social problems for policymakers and parties required to deal with humans and their animals whenever such crises occur. Various facets of disasters—those within and out of policymakers’ control—can place strain on the otherwise significant relationship and bond between owners and pets. In addition to the outworking of the interrelation between owner and pet, the way society conceives the relationship itself often reflects previously unconsidered aspects of a society, such as the way power is distributed and embedded in the daily lives of its citizens. The research discussed in this volume considers not only the relationships between guardians and companion animals, but also the relationships between guardians and other people, including government officials charged with looking after disaster victims. When discussing companion animals, this study pays particular attention to cats and dogs. While the author understands that many other kinds of animals build close relationships with humans, current society reflects that dogs and cats are primary companion animal due to their high prevalence and the strong intimacy between owner and pet. The research presented here explores the way

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

7

practical support will be rendered when future disasters strike. The author hopes to provide a new way of thinking about the social consequences of how we deal with the human-animals nexus. In many societies, companion animals are now accepted as social members. However, when disasters occur, companion animals and their guardians can suddenly be targeted, excluded, and even oppressed not only by the state, but also by well-meaning but uninformed voluntaries who are anxious to help those in need. The position afforded to companion animals and their guardians in times of stress reveals real mettle that binds together societies at a deeper level. It is a question about that in an inclusive society, who should be and how should be included even when we against difficulties. The following three research questions are addressed in this volume: (1) How did guardians and their companion animals survive the large disaster? (2) Why was the relationship between guardians and their companion animals ignored during and after a disaster? (3) What structures or mechanisms shaped the outcomes for animals and their guardians following the March 2011 tsunami? Irvine (2004: 57–58) noted that since the 1990s, many working in this area have come to use the term “companion animal,” in place of “pet,” to encapsulate the emotional connection between the species, as well as humans’ responsibility for their pets. This term is now common among academics in Japan. Irvine chooses to use “guardian” in her book, rather than the predominant term “owner.” In the medical interview education class which the author teaches at Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University in Tokyo, “owner” implicates a proprietor of things, such as a car and an apartment, and thus, the term “family” or simply the personal name of the animal is recommended. However, Cudworth avoided the use of “guardian” in her research paper, emphasizing in her notes: I avoid using the term ‘guardian’. It does not reflect the material conditions of animal companions who are legally defined as property with minimal welfare safeguards in law. None of the human participants in my study used this term, describing themselves and others as ‘owners.’ (Cudworth 2018: 500)

8

H. KAJIWARA

Notwithstanding these ongoing debates and the implications of each term, for the sake of convenience the author uses “companion animal” and “pet” interchangeably in this book, as with the terms “guardian” and “owner.”

1.2

Companion Animals in Japan

Japan has a long history of keeping animals and has seen the rise of companion animals in both prevalence and personal importance in recent times. While several studies claim that the relationships between Japanese owners and their pets only strengthened throughout the 1990s, Japanese share a long and close history with dogs and cats. Inokuma writes that dogs crossed over to Japan from the Korean Peninsula and Nansei Islands (the chain of islands extending from southwest Kyushu to north Taiwan) after the Jomon period (14,000–300 BC). He also notes that a dog known as the “Japanese Ching” was kept inside as a pet by medieval aristocrats (Inokuma 2001: 32). It’s likely that cats were introduced into Japan from the Asian continent during the Nara period (710–794 AD) as pets for the aristocracy (Nozawa and Takao 1981: 365). Notwithstanding these historical exceptions, for many centuries animals were primarily kept for their practical value. Dogs were kept to protect households and to be an aid in hunting. Utsunomiya (1999: 108) states that cats also had a utilitarian value. Cats’ ability to catch mice was important as rice, kimonos, books and other valuable possessions were often stored in wooden containers, and were thus susceptible to rodent contamination. Utsunomiya (1999: 108) reasons that cats consequently spread among the common people during the Muromachi period (1336–1573 AD). With rapid urbanization in the twentieth century, the reasons for owning animals have changed. For instance, watchdogs had essentially disappeared by the end of the 1960s (Ishida 2013: 10). In line with theories about development and social convergence, Hamano (2013: 22) argues that rapid economic growth in Japan after the 1950s produced the economic margin that would allow a shift away from keeping pets for instrumental reasons to having them for their consummatory value (i.e., for the joy found in the relationship itself). Many guardians have come to think of their companion animals as family members. In 2010, it was estimated that 34.3% of households in Japan included some kind of companion animal (Ministry of the Environment 2010). In this regard,

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

9

it is interesting to note the findings of a survey conducted in 2017 that found that only 23.3% of Japanese households had children aged below 18 years old (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 2018: 7). Japanese households containing companion animals outnumber those with younger children. Given the declining birth rate and aging population in Japan, it is likely that this gap will widen in the future. In an aging society with fewer children, some people are seeking to own companion animals for psychological reasons. The companion animal can be “an eternal child” for parents after their children have grown up and left home (Hamano 2013: 22). Ozaki (2004) and Ozaki and Sakurai (2002) argue that a “pet boom” occurred from around 1990 with the number of dog registrations rising from 3.8 to 5.8 million between 1990 and 2000. The 1950 Rabies Prevention Law requires owners of dogs to register their animals with local governments within 30 days of acquiring the animal. Although owners do not always follow the guidelines, the government figures give us fair idea as to how the number of dogs is changing over time. The number of registered dogs has since continued to rise, and the figure stood at 6.9 million in 2009 (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, n.d.). Figure 1.1 shows this rapid increase of dog registrations in the 1990s and early 2000s, further indicating Japan’s increasing connection to dogs as pets, albeit since 2011 the number of registered dogs has generally decreased. Based on its own online survey, Japan Pet Food Association (2018: 18) estimated the number of dogs in Japan was approximately 8.9 million in 2018. There is no official registration system for cats, but the Association’s (2018: 18) estimate for cats was approximately 9.65 million in 2018. Although many accounts have substantiated the fact that the relation between Japanese and their dogs has been “very close” for some time, until the beginning of this century the majority of owners kept their dogs outside (Ozaki 2004: 27, 29). This perhaps reflected the ingrained cultural sense that the outside was in some way “dirty” or “contaminated,” born out in the practice of removing footwear when entering homes and even offices. However, as the economy and consequently infrastructure developed in the 1970s and 1980s, seeing a rise of paved areas throughout Japan, the practice disappeared from public places and the sensitivity regarding what is clean and what is dirty has changed. Accordingly, although only 1% of apartments sold in the Tokyo metropolitan area in 1998 permitted pets, by 2007 the figure had risen

10

H. KAJIWARA

Fig. 1.1 Registered dogs in Japan, 1960–2017 (Source Compiled by the author from Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (n.d.). Inu no toroku tosu to yobo chusha tosu-to no nenji betsu suii (Showa 35-nen ~ Heisei 29nendo) [Annual transition of the number of registration and vaccination of dogs, 1965–2017 fiscal year])

to 86.2% (Real Estate Economic Institute 2008: n.p., see also Real Estate Distribution Research Institute, Inc. 2008: n.p.). Moreover, Kakinuma (2008: 79–80) found that 80% of dogs are sleeping indoors, with 30% even sleeping in bed with their owner. According to one survey in 2018 found that 85.7% of owners were now keeping their pet dog indoors (Japan Pet Food Association 2018: 21). A survey administered by a pet insurance company in 2018 found that dog owners spent an annual average of J¥480,000 (approximately US$4418) on the care of their pet, while cat owners were spending J¥230,000 (approximately US$2117). The survey also revealed that over 30% of pet owners spent more on grooming their animals than they did for themselves (Anicom Insurance, Inc. 2018: n.p.). The Yano Research Institute estimates that in 2018 the market size of the pet industry exceeded J¥1500 billion (about US$13.5 billion), which includes veterinary clinics, pet shops, and other pet-related supplies (Yano Research

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

11

Institute Ltd. 2018: n.p.). All this further corroborates that a strong attachment to pets has also been detected in Japanese society since the mid-1990s. Another measure substantiating the shift toward pet ownership and attachment is the change in public language, as shown in Fig. 1.2. It illustrates that the number of newspaper articles in which the phrase “pet loss grief” (petto rosu) appeared in the title or text. Before 1995, there were no articles about pet loss grief in Japan’s two major newspapers, Asahi and Yomiuri. After 1995, however, both newspapers began to publish articles on such grief, and the number of such articles has remained fairly constant since then. The practice of dog-keeping in Japan today evident that the current enthusiasm for pet dogs continues to grow, as part of a much more extensive global phenomenon (Skabelund 2011: 182). Nevertheless, positive sentiments toward pets have not permeated all Japanese society. Indeed, in an effort to control animal population, a lot of dogs and cats are killed with carbon dioxide gas in Japan. There are “animal protection centers”

Fig. 1.2 Articles about pet loss grief (Source Compiled by the author from the Asahi Shinbun’s database “Kikuzo II Visual” and the Yomiuri Shinbun’s database “Yomidasu Rekishikan” from 1995 to 2018)

12

H. KAJIWARA

(dobutsu hogo senta), “centers for the love and protection for animals” (dobutsu aigo senta) and “public health centers” (hokensho) in each of Japan’s 47 prefectures. Though they have different names, they all function as animal control centers where lost or abandoned pets or ownerless dogs and cats are taken to. Only a few animals are returned to their owner, and some are adopted into a new family. But most are euthanized. In June 2014, the Ministry of the Environment publicly announced an action plan to create a “society where humans and animals to live happily” (Ministry of the Environment 2014). One strategy was to increase the rate at which abandoned or ownerless pets would be adopted so that no animals would be killed. This indicates a top-down approach to societal acceptance and promotion of pets. Each year the Ministry of the Environment announces the statistics pertaining to the outcome of dogs and cats in the animal protection centers. Since these implemented government strategies, the number of animals put down has declined sharply since 2007 when 98,556 dogs and 200,760 cats were euthanized (Ministry of the Environment 2018). But still the numbers remain high, with 8362 dogs and 34,854 cats killed by gas in fiscal 2017 (Ministry of the Environment 2018; see Table 1.1). The author found that 194 dogs and 316 cats were mysteriously lost in these statistics for some unknown reasons. Though many of the local governments have procedures in place for adopting unwanted animals, in a lot of cases it is animal rescue activists who bring the animals to private shelters and try to find new foster families. Consequently, many of the more committed private shelters have found themselves overwhelmed by the number of animals (Ichijyodani 2017; NHK 2018; Ryukyu Shinpo 2018 August 25). Moreover, it should Table 1.1 The disposal of animals taken to animal control agencies (2017)

Returned to owner Adopted by new families Euthanized by gas Total number of animals Total number of animals by source Missing in the count

Dogs

Cats

Total

12,286 17,669 8362 38,317 38,511 194

316 26,651 34,854 61,821 62,137 316

12,602 44,320 43,216 100,138 100,648 510

Compiled by the author from Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan (2018: n.p.). Inu neko no hikitoriri oyobi fusho dobutsu no shuyo jokyo [Taking custody of dogs and cats and containment situation of injured animals]

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

13

be noted that the government’s decision to implement a “zero-killing” policy has in some cases have misrepresented outcome. The local governments that aim for “zero-killing,” such as Tokyo, do not include in their statistics dogs and cats that the animal control centers judged as too difficult for adoption. Thus, there are some animals have been intendedly excluded from the statistics. Several activists have claimed the animals that are unsuitable for adoption because of their age, disease, or aggressiveness have been left shut in the cages until they die. Overall, the companion animals have come to occupy an increasingly important position in Japanese society. With that change has come a number of challenges which have not yet been adequately addressed. It continues to be the case that little attention has yet to be focused on the relationship between humans and their companion animals. The research reported below is an attempt to begin the huge effort that will be required to fill that lacuna.

1.3

The March 11, 2011, Earthquake

The Great East Japan Earthquake (also known as 3.11 earthquake), a magnitude-9 earthquake, struck the Tohoku region in Japan at 14:46 on March 11, 2011. Thirty minutes to one hour later the coastal areas were hit by a huge tsunami. TEPCO’s (Tokyo Electric Power Company) Nuclear Power Plant One (Daiichi) in Fukushima was seriously damaged from the tsunami and went into meltdown. Based on tsunami tracking data, Japan Meteorological Agency (2013: 4–7) concluded that the tsunami reached heights of up to 16 meters or more in Ofunato in the Iwate Prefecture (Fig. 1.3). The earthquake and tsunami caused widespread damage along the coast of northeastern Japan, and many coastal cities and towns in Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima Prefectures were entirely destroyed. There were even some casualties as far away as Chiba Prefecture near Tokyo. The impacts on buildings were as follows: 121,990 houses completely destroyed, 282,900 houses partially destroyed, and 730,044 houses damaged (National Police Agency Emergency Disaster Security Headquarters 2019: 1). The official number of deaths resulting directly from the disaster is 15,897 people, and the number of missing persons is 2533 (National Police Agency Emergency Disaster Security Headquarters 2019: 1). According to the Reconstruction Agency (2018: 1), an additional 3701 people’s lives were lost due to disaster-related deaths.

14

H. KAJIWARA

Fig. 1.3 Japan and the Tohoku region’s three affected prefectures (Source Made by the author from Japan Meteorological Agency (2011: n.p.). The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake: first report)

Journalist Hayakawa described that the disaster-related deaths caused by stress, exhaustion, and the worsening of preexisting illnesses due to evacuation (Hayakawa 2016: 123). Disaster-related deaths also include suicide as a result of depression while living in temporary accommodation. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) was running two nuclear power plants in Fukushima at the time of March 2011. Both nuclear power plants experienced blackouts as a result of the tsunami. At Nuclear Power Plant Two (Daini), all four nuclear reactors were shutdown. Nuclear Power Plant One went into complete meltdown. It contained six reactors of which the first, third, and fourth experienced hydrogen explosions. Although the second reactor did not explode, it emitted large amounts of radiation (National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission 2012: 25). The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of Japan rated the urgency of the meltdown as

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

15

a Level 7 incident on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 2011: 1–2; see also International Atomic Energy Agency, n.d.). The Fukushima disaster is on par with that experienced at Chernobyl in 1986. The number of animals affected by the tsunami is not clear. The Ministry of the Environment reported that 602 companion animals died in Iwate Prefecture while approximately 2500 died in Fukushima Prefecture. The number of such deaths in Miyagi Prefecture remains unknown (Ministry of the Environment 2013: 12). Although the Japanese government did not provide residents with any details regarding the “accident” at the nuclear power plant, at 20:50 (local time) on March 11, 2011, an evacuation order was issued to inhabitants within a 3-kilometer radius of Nuclear Power Plant One. This evacuation zone gradually expanded to a 20-kilometer radius by 18:25 on March 12 (Hino 2015: 21). The Fukushima Prefectural Government did not allow residents to be evacuated with their companion animals (Kawamata 2014: 84); as a result, many animals were left behind in the radioactive contaminated areas. On April 22, 2011, the evacuation zone (now the 20-kilometer radius) was sanctioned as highly restricted by the Japanese government, and barriers were erected around area. Consequently, it becomes extremely difficult for those owning animals to return home to rescue or simply to feed and water their animals. People who were caught entering the prohibited zones were subject to a fine of up to J¥100,000 (US$920) or 30 days in national prison. Ota (2012: 44) estimates that there were 5800 registered dogs and a similar number (if not more) of cats in the 20-kilometer radius of the nuclear power plant before the incident occurred. As some owners do not register their pets, the actual number of dogs and cats is certainly even higher. The Fukushima government claims it rescued 463 dogs and 545 cats from the evacuation zone between 2011 and 2015 (Fukushima Prefecture, n.d.; see also Itoh 2018: 15). It is estimated that the number of dogs and cats left behind would have been at least 10,000 and as high as 20,000 (Kawamata 2014: 85). That is, most companion animals were not rescued. There are few accurate statistics indicating the number of animals left behind or evacuated, and the number of animals that were born or died in the restricted zone since the disaster. However, statistics on farm animals are fairly accurate, because these animals are required to be registered with the government. Sato (2013: 24) reports that there

16

H. KAJIWARA

were 3400 cows, 31,500 pigs, and 630,000 chickens. According to Sato, 630,000 chickens starved to death or were killed. 31,500 pigs too. But some pigs run away, after that they were euthanized. At the point of June 2012, 1700 cows death from hunger, illness, or accident. 975 cows were euthanized. 800 cows were rescued by farmer, 130 cows went wild. Although the number of cows does not add up correctly, it is deduced that this is because of the confusion in the disaster. After the explosions at Nuclear Power Plant One, it became clear that the radioactive contamination had been spread over more than 20 kilometers to the east-northeast by the wind; hence, the 20-kilometer radius evacuation zone was not enough. Although the System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI) had calculated this spread of pollution and had immediately informed the government, the information was not made public. As a result, many people initially fled in this direction and were further exposed to radiation. On April 16, 2012, the government then redefined the evacuation area, designating three zones with differing procedures for evacuees to return home. The first zone included areas in which the level of radioactivity was judged to be 20 millisieverts per year, and residents originally from this zone could prepare to return home. The second zone included areas where the level was judged to be 20–50 millisieverts per year and the return of residents was restricted. The third zone included areas at over 50 millisieverts per year and a return home resettlement was judged to be impossible a long period of at least over 5 years. The first zone “Zone in preparation for the lifting of the evacuation order [Hinan shiji kaijo junbi kuiki]” and second zones “Restricted residence area [Kyoju seigen kuiki]” included a village 30 kilometers to east-northeast from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. In these areas, the government did not allow residents to stay overnight at home in principle, but allowed them to return home only during the day. The government prohibited entry the third zone “Difficult-to-return zone [Kikan konnan kuiki],” in principle. If the residents or the employees of radioactive decontamination companies go into the areas with permission, they were required to wear protective clothing and carry a radiation dosimeter. In April 2017, the national government lifted all evacuation orders for residents with property in zones one and two that have been judged safe and level of radioactivity under 20 millisieverts per year. Many Japanese citizens, Japanese and international experts and media question this decision because the worldwide safety standards of radiation exposure are

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

17

1 millisievert per year—a standard that is ironically observed in other parts of Japan. For example, a human rights specialist of United Nations, Baskut Tuncak reported that on October 25, 2018, a return of residents to the areas of 20 millisieverts per year is underway in Fukushima, which may have a serious impact on the health of the residents. He expressed a serious concern and urged the Japanese government to stop to let returning evacuees, especially those of children and reproductive age for women (The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Human Rights) 2018: n.p.). While the government has decontaminated the houses of inhabitants, the radioactive contamination in mountainous areas and rivers has not been addressed, leaving nearby residential areas at risk. Consequently, most young people and families with children have not returned to their original homes. Eight years after the nuclear accident, only 23.2% of the former residents have returned to zones one and two (Kahoku Shimpo 2019: n.p.). Newspaper Kahoku Shimpo (ibid.: n.p.) also found that in Namie, a town less than 20 kilometers from Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant One, only 6.2% of the residents have returned to live in their homes. The number of people from Fukushima Prefecture who continue to live in temporary evacuation housing is 42,480 as of March 2019 (Fukushima Prefecture Disaster Countermeasures Headquarters 2019: 1). Those figures do not include individuals who have acquired a new house independently of government assistance and those who have found accommodation in the public housing for victims built by local governments. Public housing, unlike simple and cheap structure temporary housing, can live permanently, but some people who want to return to their original homes someday also live there. They think they are still “evacuated.” Also, there are no accurate statistics about people who fled themselves to other prefectures. Without actual figures, it remains difficult to ascertain the number of people impacted, and the challenging conditions faced by nuclear refugees. The national and prefectural governments along with the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) have been trying to decrease the number of people identifiable as “refugees” in order to reduce the amount of compensation for which they might be held responsible. TEPCO is now paying J¥100,000 (US$920) per month to each resident of the affected areas as compensation, but stop paying even that small amount when the restrictions are lifted on a person’s property. To put it in perspective, the reparations are less than a starting salary for a college or university graduate J¥183,700 (US$1738)

18

H. KAJIWARA

(National Personnel Authority 2019: 6). The government was aiming to formally declare that it has achieved “zero refugees” by the time of the Tokyo Olympics in 2020, although the Olympics were not held due to the global pandemic of COVID-19. But while the number of refugees may technically decrease, the high levels of radioactivity caused by the nuclear disaster continue to pose challenges that ought to be recompensed. For instance, with the prevalence of cryptorchidism among children increased 13.4% nationwide following the Fukushima nuclear explosions (Murase et al. 2018: 67). The government and TEPCO now state that they will complete the decommissioning of the nuclear reactors in Fukushima within the next 40 years. However, there is still no known means of neutralizing nuclear reactors after they have exploded, and some experts are suggesting that it may take over 100 years until the nuclear reactors can be fully decommissioned. It is likely that the Great East Japan Earthquake will continue to pose issues in Japan, particularly as it pertains to the evacuation and rehousing of residents, for some time into the future.

1.4

Disasters and Animals

The grief of those who lose their pets in the midst of disaster is often overlooked and ignored by others around them. Doka defines such grief which is not recognized by others as “disenfranchised grief” (Doka 2002: 11). Even though one family member may consider their pet to be an equal part of the family, it is often the case that other members of the same family afford the pet a much lower status, and are thus less affected by the pet’s death. Redmalm (2015: 32) argues that the problem is not simple or straightforward, pointing to the ambiguity generated by pet grief that often resides as “liminal grief - as grief simultaneously inside and outside the margin.” In any case, the sense of isolation which follows can become a serious psychological burden for many pet owners who have lost or otherwise become separated from their pets during and after a disaster. Indeed, several psychologists have conducted quantitative investigations to this end. Zottarelli (2010), for instance, suggests that pet loss impacts negatively on the ability of their owners to respond in a safe, timely, or effective fashion during and after a disaster. And the adverse consequences endure; indeed, Hunt et al. (2008), for instance, found that pet loss or forced abandonment slowed the process of recovering from a disaster. Other research Hunt involved has pointed the benefits

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

19

that would flow from allowing pets and owner more easily to evacuate together (Hunt et al. 2012). Moreover, animals could be a protective factor rather than a risk factor during disasters, facilitating the development of “disaster resilience” in humans (Thompson 2013; Thompson et al. 2014). Trigg et al. (2015) questionnaire survey provided another perspective on the pet-owner relationship by investigating the interactions between humans and animals during calamity in Australia. They suggest that having an understanding of differences in pet-owner closeness can improve the effectiveness of rescue teams when disasters occur (see also O’Dwyer and Thompson 2018; Thompson et al. 2017). In her quantitative investigation, Yamazaki (2015) analyzes factors influencing the evacuation behavior of pet owners, summarizing their need for support. She indicates the importance of education and preparation before an evacuation. Although her study is highly significant as pioneering research, it overlooks the broader social impact when a nuclear disaster occurs. Potts and Gadenne (2014) provide an extensive qualitative account from experts in the area of animal protection, rescue and welfare, as well as the views of pet owners in the context of the 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. The research concludes that while traumatic experiences often deepened the connection humans felt with their animals, the responses of emergency management services tended to be anthropocentric. There is research further investigating the decision-making process regarding and responding to pets and animals in disaster, and Irvine (2009) concludes that the vulnerability of animals is constructed by our “thinking.” In her book Animals and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster (2018), Itoh discusses the Japanese government’s policies affecting animals and the actions of volunteer animal rescue groups of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. This book, however, focuses on the personal experiences of guardians, the relationship with their companion animals, and the social and political structures that shape their treatment during and after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Reflecting disaster realities, the Pet Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act of 2006 was passed in the United States following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (United States Government 2006 Public Law 109-308). Known as “PETS Act,” the act ensures that preparations and operational plans address the needs of individuals with household pets and service animals during and following local and state emergencies. Leonard and Scammon (2007) provide an interesting review on changes in societal views of pets that may have contributed to the enactment of the PETS

20

H. KAJIWARA

Act. Through interview surveys carried out in Texas following Hurricane Harvey in 2017, Glassey (2018) found that the PETS Act and the lessons of Hurricane Katrina had a positive effect for companion animals in the disaster response. Western scholars have turned their interest toward the animal rescue activities the Great East Japan Earthquake disaster in Japan. For example, through qualitative research, both Ahonen (2012) and Mattes (2016, 2018) illustrate the difficulties the animal rescue volunteers faced and their ongoing struggles due to Japan’s lack of well-established NGOs, like Humane Society in the United States. It is important to note that the aforementioned studies and those investigating Japan’s response to the 3.11 earthquake written from a North American perspective or Western context. For that reason, it is useful to consider how the relationship between guardians and their companion animals is changing in the nonWestern world, written from a non-Western perspective. It is helpful to consider enduring impact of traditional cultural outlooks and the extent to which affluence and the spread of urban lifestyles are likely to change the way people view and treat animals in other societies. Thus, there has been little qualitative study done concerning disaster and animals in the evolving sociocultural context of Japan. Therefore, it can be said this volume is a pioneering research in this field. There are a few Japanese studies investigating the impact of disasters that ought to be mentioned. However, there are not many studies that pay attention to guardians and their companion animals during such calamities. Studies considering disasters began in earnest after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake that hit western Japan in 1995. Yamaji (2013), whose previous work looks into reconstruction post-disaster from a gendered point of view, investigates the process of and problems associated with pets permitted to live in public housing allowed, which was authorized after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. When they built the temporary public housing, Hyogo Prefecture and Kobe City initially banned residents to keep their pets. However, many demanding letters were posted to the government’s offices from the Japan Anti-Vivisection Association (JAVA) and La Foundation Brigitte Bardot, an animal protection foundation in France. The Governor of Hyogo accordingly permitted keeping companion animals in the public housing. However, there was limited housing and space for disaster refugees, even less so if animals were to be kept there, and many temporary housing complexes were only built two years after the earthquake (Yamaji 2013: 4–5). Yamaji (2013:

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

21

1) concludes that providing pet-friendly public housing was needed in the early stages of the Great East Japan Earthquake. However, similar to the 1995 earthquake, problems occurs whereby there was limited or delayed public housing after the 2011 earthquake disaster, which is clarified in Chapter 3. There is also research and fieldwork specific to the Great East Japan Earthquake in sociological terms. However, again, there are few scholars who are paying attention to the relation between human and companion animals. Although the following two records are not research papers per se, they offer important insight on this particular topic. The first record was published by the Ministry of the Environment (2013) reporting the suffering situation endured by animals in disasters, and how Japanese national and prefectural governments responded. The second record is a special issue of Chikusan no Kenkyu (Sustainable livestock production and human welfare), a magazine that specializes in stock raising.1 The feature gives accounts on how the veterinarians, administrative officers, and volunteers coped with the suffering animals from the 3.11 earthquake (Chikusan no Kenkyu 2014). The Great East Japan Earthquake certainly was not the last large-scale disasters the national government deemed “major disaster.” Subsequent disasters include the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake in the Kyushu region in south Japan; the 2018 floods in western Japan; and the 2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi earthquake in north Japan. But still, findings on the impact of and relationship between disaster and animals have not progressed. Although Kato’s (2017a; see also 2017b) work provides a good exception to this status quo, Kato, an associate professor at Kyushu University of Health and Welfare, went to Mashiki Sports Park shelter immediately after the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake to conduct his research. He became and continues to be an ongoing supporter for the guardians who evacuated with companion animals as a supporter, and he wrote about his activity as an ethnography. Kato carefully describes the course of the situation chronologically—starting from the moment of the disaster’s impact and the period of confusion that followed. According to him, guardians could stay with their pets in a refuge during the confusion phase. However, when order and regulations were being establishing in the refuge, the rule “No pets allowed inside“ was imposed and an animal shelter was established. Kato continued taking the photographs of the companion animals and held the photo exhibition in support of the guardians. Kato’s paper merits the following: He observes changes in the modes of treatment of

22

H. KAJIWARA

pets in an evacuation area immediately after an earthquake has occurred. In addition, his study provides a good example of action research through supporting the guardians and their companion animals. Nevertheless, as Kato states that the discussion is a preliminary one, progress in his study regarding this event is expected. Thus, there are very few studies that conduct full-scale fieldwork and that analyze the data regarding a disaster and companion animals in Japan, particularly the Great East Japan Earthquake, sociologically. The aforementioned studies that explore animals in disaster in Japan are not recognized in global academia, but they are still worthy for interest’s sake. This book endeavors to develop such new field. This study makes significant impact on human-animal studies in this context of disasters in Japan, using empirical research and applied critical realism, which will be detailed in Chapter 8. This research deserves reference as a record of humans and animals during the biggest nuclear disaster in the world since Chernobyl. As discussed, disasters in Japan continue to exist beyond the Great East Japan Earthquake. Moreover, the negative effects of the earthquake and aforementioned flooding in 2018 continue. Forest fires and largescale hurricanes occur frequently around the world due to climate change. This research was originally conceived as a PhD project that aimed to contribute to the field of HAS and sociology by considering the way Japan, a highly developed Asian society, has responded to the plight of pet owners on a social and legislative scale following a major disaster.

1.5

Overview of the Research

This chapter provided a brief background of the empirical research in this volume by describing the position of companion animals in contemporary Japan and the context of the 3.11 earthquake and tsunami. Chapter 2 explains the methods and procedures of the research. This book is composed of four parts. Following the introduction and methodology in Part I, Part II, which comprises Chapters 3 and 4, describes the experience of guardians and their companion animals in the tsunami-affected areas in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures. Chapter 3 gives a detailed account of Mr. Ryoichi Suzuki’s experience of surviving the tsunami with his wife and their small dog, Baron. Chapter 4 goes on to describe the actions of a further nineteen guardians. Based on their behavior during the evacuation, the author explores the quality of the

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

23

relationship between the guardians and their companion animals before, during, and after the disaster. Part III, which includes Chapters 5–7, depicts the experiences of guardians and their companion animals in the nuclear disaster-affected areas in Fukushima Prefecture. Chapter 5 relates the life story of Ms. Hitomi Sato, who lost her dog and one of her cats during evacuation from a nuclear disaster. Chapter 6 provides an account of the actions taken by 34 guardians affected by a nuclear power plant accident. Their behavior during the evacuation was considerably more complicated than in the other tsunami areas, and so Chapter 7 explores some factors of that complexity. Part IV, composed of Chapters 8–10, seeks to explain the social phenomena visible in the testimonies presented in Parts I and II by focusing on causal mechanisms and structures. In the framework of critical realism, “abduction” and “retroduction” are crucial tools that allow for a number of inferences to be made. These two inference methods are explained in detail in Chapter 8. In that chapter, the author highlights some of the deep structures or mechanisms that shape events in the world—what is called the “real domain” in critical realism. The basic stance of Human-Animal Studies (HAS), which has developed over the past 30 years in academic world, particularly in the Western world, has not been rooted in Japan. The relationship between humans and animals in Japanese society is supported by the ambiguous notions of “The Love and Protection for Animals [doubutsu aigo].” This concept prioritizes economic logic over animal rights. The dynamics of structures that ignored and oppressed the relationship between guardians and pets in a disaster is showed in Fig. 8.1. Chapter 9 discusses the expected arguments that might emerge with regard to having bonding rights for guardians and their companion animals in the future. The guardian’s behavior cannot be understood without the assumption that there is a primitive tie of life that transcends species. Moreover, that primitive interspecies tie is defined as the notion of “bonding.” Given that general understanding, the author suggests that it is therefore necessary to establish “bonding rights“ for social change. Finally, Chapter 10 provides a conclusion, underlining this book’s significance and pointing toward future research and policy discussions.

24

H. KAJIWARA

Note 1. “Chikusan no Kenkyu” literally means “The study of animal husbandry.” However, the magazine is published with an English name “Sustainable livestock production and human welfare.”

References Literature in English Ahonen, P. (2012). Animal lovers, bridge-builders, and supervising watchdogs: Framing and civil society construction by Japanese pro-animal organizations in the Kansai and Tokyo areas (Master’s thesis). University of Turku. Cudworth, E. (2018). ‘Now, where were we?’ The highs and lows of hunting data with a research pack. Journal of Sociology, 54(4), 488–503. DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and society: An introduction to human-animal studies. New York: Columbia University Press. Doka, K. J. (2002). Disenfranchised grief: New directions, challenges, and strategies for practice. Champaign, IL.: Research Press. Glassey, S. (2018). Did Harvey learn from Katrina? Initial observations of the response to companion animals during Hurricane Harvey. Animals, 8(4), 47. Hayakawa, M. (2016). Increase in disaster-related deaths: Risks and social impacts of evacuation. Annals of the ICRP, 45(2_suppl), 123–128. Humane Society of the United States. https://www.humanesociety.org/. Hunt, M., Al-Awadi, H., & Johnson, M. (2008). Psychological sequelae of pet loss following Hurricane Katrina. Anthrozoös, 21(2), 109–121. Hunt, M. G., Bogue, K., & Rohrbaugh, N. (2012). Pet ownership and evacuation prior to hurricane irene. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 2(4), 529–539. Hurst, D. (2019, June 12). ‘This is not a “what if” story’: Tokyo braces for the earthquake of a century. The Guardian. Retrieved December 13, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/12/this-is-nota-what-if-story-tokyo-braces-for-the-earthquake-of-a-century. International Atomic Energy Agency. (n.d.). Fukushima nuclear accident. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/ fukushima. Irvine, L. (2004). If you tame me: Understanding our connection with animals. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Irvine, L. (2009). Filling the ark: Animal welfare in disasters. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Itoh M. (2018) Animals and the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

25

Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). (2011). The 2011 Great East Japan earthquake: First report. Retrieved December 21, 2019, from https://www.jma. go.jp/jma/en/News/2011_Earthquake_01.html. Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). (2013). Lessons learned from the tsunami disaster caused by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and improvements in JMA’s tsunami warning system. Retrieved June 17, 2019, from https://www.data.jma.go.jp/svd/eqev/data/en/tsunami/ LessonsLearned_Improvements_brochure.pdf. Leonard, H. A., & Scammon, D. L. (2007). No pet left behind: Accommodating pets in emergency planning. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(1), 49–53. Mattes, S. (2016). The shared vulnerability and resiliency of the Fukushima animals and their rescuers. In M. S. Chaiken & M. Companion (Eds.), Responses to disasters and climate change: Understanding vulnerability and fostering resilience (pp. 103–112). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Mattes, S. M. (2018). Animals left behind: Multispecies vulnerability in post-3-11 Japan (Doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University. Murase, K., Murase, J., Machidori, K., Mizuno, K., Hayashi, Y., & Kohri, K. (2018). Nationwide increase in cryptorchidism after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Urology, 118, 65–70. O’Dwyer, L., & Thompson, K. (2018). Attachment, bushfire preparedness, planning, and response among Animal Guardians: A South Australian case study. PLoS currents, 10. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6097849/. Potts, A., & Gadenne, D. (2014). Animals in emergencies: Learning from the christchurch earthquakes. Christchurch, New Zealand: Canterbury University Press. Redmalm, D. (2015). Pet grief: When is non-human life grievable? The Sociological Review, 63(1), 19–35. Skabelund, A. H. (2011). Empire of dogs: canines, Japan, and the making of the modern imperial world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Human Rights). (2018). Japan must halt returns to Fukushima, radiation remains a concern, says UN rights expert. Retrieved December 25, 2019, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews. aspx?NewsID=23772&LangID=E. Thompson, K. (2013). Save me, save my dog: Increasing natural disaster preparedness and survival by addressing human-animal relationships. Australian Journal of Communication, 40(1), 123–136. Thompson, K., Every, D., Rainbird, S., Cornell, V., Smith, B., & Trigg, J. (2014). No pet or their person left behind: Increasing the disaster resilience

26

H. KAJIWARA

of vulnerable groups through animal attachment, activities and networks. Animals, 4(2), 214–240. Thompson, K., Trigg, J., & Smith, B. (2017). Animal ownership among vulnerable populations in regional South Australia: Implications for natural disaster preparedness and resilience. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 23(1), 59–63. Trigg, J., Smith, B., & Thompson, K. (2015). Does emotional closeness to pets motivate their inclusion in bushfire survival plans? Implications for emergency communicators. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 30(2), 24–30. United States Geological Survey (USGS). (n.d.). 20 Largest earthquakes in the world. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from https://www.usgs.gov/natural-haz ards/earthquake-hazards/science/20-largest-earthquakes-world?qt-science_c enter_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects. United States Government. (2006). Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 25, 2016, from https://www.congress. gov/109/plaws/publ308/PLAW-109publ308.pdf. Yamazaki, S. (2015). A survey of companion-animal owners affected by the east Japan great earthquake in Iwate and Fukushima prefectures, Japan. Anthrozoös, 28(2), 291–304. Zottarelli, L. K. (2010). Broken bond: An exploration of human factors associated with companion animal loss during Hurricane Katrina. Sociological Forum, 25(1), 110–122.

Literature in Japanese Anicom Insurance, Inc. (2018). Mainenkorei! Petto ni kakeru nenkan shishutsu chosa (2018-nen) [Annually! Annual expenditure survey on pets 2018]. 5 August 2019. https://www.anicom-sompo.co.jp/news/2018/news_0190 315.html. Cabinet Office, Government of Japan [Naikakufu]. (n.d.). Jishin saigai sotei sa reru daikibo jishin [Earthquake disaster, large earthquake that are expected]. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from http://www.bousai.go.jp/kyoiku/hokenkyou sai/jishin.html. Chikusan no Kenkyu [Sustainable Livestock Production and Human Welfare]. (2014). Special issue: Higashinihon daishinsai ka no dobutsu tachi to ningen no kiroku—konpanion animaru hen [The record of the animals and human beings under the Great East Japan earthquake—Volume of companion animals], 68(1). Tokyo: Yokendo. Fukushima Prefecture. (n.d.). Keikai kuiki, kikan kon’nan kuiki-nai ni okeru hogo katsudo no kekka ni tsuite [About result of protection activity in the restricted areas and the difficult-to-return zones] [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/150572.pdf.

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

27

Fukushima Prefecture Disaster Countermeasures Headquarters [Fukushimaken saigai taisaku honbu]. (2019). Heisei 23-nen Tohoku chiho Taiheiyo oki jishin ni yoru higai jokyo soku ho (dai 1756-po) [Immediate report on damage caused by the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake (1756th report)] [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/upl oaded/life/438691_1107339_misc.pdf. Hamano, S. (2013). Katei Dobutsu to no Tsukiai [Relations with the family animals]. In O. Ishida, S. Hamano, M. Hanazono, & A. Setoguchi (Eds.), Nihon no Doubutsu Kan: Hito to dobutsu no Kankei Shi [Japanese attitudes toward animals: A history of human-animal relations in Japan] (pp. 19–35). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Hino, K. (2015). Genpatsu hinan no hassei to katei [The generation and process of an nuclear evacuation]. In Kanseigakuindaigaku saigai fukko seido kenkyujo [Research Institute for Disaster Recovery System, Kansei Gakuin University], Higashinihon daishinsai shien zenkoku nettowaku (JCN) [The Great East Japan Earthquake Support National Network (JCN)] and Fukushima no kodomo-tachi o mamoru horitsuya nettowaku (SAFLAN) [Lawyers Network to Protect Fukushima Children (SAFLAN)] (Ed.), Genpatsu hinan hakusho [Nuclear evacuation white paper] (pp. 19–30). Kyoto: Jinbunshoin. Ichijodani, K. (2017). Hogo dantai wa panku sunzen! Fukona neko o ippiki demo herasu tame ni ichiban taisetsuna koto [The protection groups are going to burst! The most important thing to reduce even one unhappy cat]. Sarai.jp. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://serai.jp/living/167944. Inokuma, H. (2001). Inu no Dobutsu Gaku: Animaru Saiensu 3 [Zoology of domestic dogs: Animal science 3]. In Y. Hayashi & E. Sato (Eds.). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Ishida, O. (2013). Josho Dobutsu-kan no Keifu [Introduction: The genealogy of attitudes toward animals]. In O. Ishida, S. Hamano, M. Hanazono, & A. Setoguchi (Eds.), Nihon no Doubutsu Kan: Hito to dobutsu no Kankei Shi [Japanese attitudes toward animals: A history of human-animal relations in Japan] (pp. 1–16). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Japan Pet Food Association [Ippan shadanhojin pettofudo kyokai]. (2018). Heisei 30-nen (2018-nen) zenkoku inuneko shiiku jittai chosa shuyo shihyo samari [National breeding survey of dog and cats 2018: Summary of key indicators]. 28 July 2019. https://petfood.or.jp/data/chart2018/3.pdf. Kahoku Shimpo. (2019, April 12). Fukushima: hinan kaijo 9 kuiki no kyojuritsu 23. 2-Pasento tomari koreikaritsu wa kosuijun [Fukushima: Residential rate in 9 areas for evacuation cancellation only 23.2% high aging rate]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.kahoku.co.jp/tohokunews/ 201904/20190412_63016.html. Kakinuma, M. (2008). Hattatsu shinrigaku kara mita kainushi to inu no kankei hito no migattena yokyuni honrosareru inu [The relationship between owner

28

H. KAJIWARA

and dog from the point of view in developmental psychology: Dogs who are tossed about by the selfish demands of human]. In Y. Hayashi, Y. Mori, F. Akishinonomiya. K. Ikeya, & T. Okuno (Eds.), Petto to Shakai: Hito to dobutsu no kankeigaku 3 [Pets and society: The study of human animal relations 3] (pp. 79–99).Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Kato, K. (2017a). Heisei 28-nen Kumamoto jishin ni okeru “petto doko hinan” ni kansuru yobi-teki kosatsu: Mashiki-machi sogo undo koen hinanjo no jirei yori [Preliminary considerations on “pet evacuation” following the Kumamoto earthquake in 2016: A case study on the shelter in Mashiki Town General Sport Park]. Kyushu hoken fukushi daigaku kenkyu kiyo [Journal of Kyushu University of Health and Welfare], 18, 33–44. Kato, K. (2017b). Heisei 28-nen Kumamoto jishin hisai-chi ni okeru “hito to petto no ” ni kansuru jissen-teki kenkyu: Kumamoto ken Mashikimachi no kasetsu danchi no jirei o chushin ni [Practical research on “disaster risk reduction of people and pets” in the area affected by the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake: Focusing on the case of temporary housing complex in Mashiki Town, Kumamoto Prefecture]. Kenkyu katsudo hokoku-sho [Research/Activity Report], 43–56 [Pdf file]. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from http://id.nii. ac.jp/1147/00001325/. Kawamata, J. (2014). Shinsai Oyobi Genpatsu Jiko Niyoru Fukushima Ken Juishi-kai de no Taio [Response of the Fukushima Veterinary Medical Association during an earthquake disaster and nuclear plant accident]. Chikusan no Kenkyu [Sustainable Livestock Production and Human Welfare], 68(1), 83–91. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry [Keizaisangyosho]. (2011, April 12). News Release Tohoku chiho Taiheiyo oki jishin ni yoru fukushima daiichigenshiryoku hatsudensho no jiko toraburu ni taisuru INES (kokusai genshiryoku hoshasen jisho hyoka shakudo) no tekiyo ni tsuite [Application of INES (International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale) for accidents and troubles at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station caused by the Tohoku Pacific Ocean Earthquake]. [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000001 eap9-att/2r9852000001eax7.pdf. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (n.d.). Saigaiji ni okeru petto no kyugo taisaku gaidorain no kaitei to ni kakaru kentokai Giji gaiyo [The proceedings summary of review meeting for the revision of “Disaster Measures Guideline for Pet Relief”]. 16 June 2019. https://www. env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/aigo/2_data/saigai_guide.html. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2010). Dobutsu aigo ni kansuru seronchosa no gaiyo [The summary of opinion poll about animal protection 2010 October]. 3 August 2019. http://www.env.go. jp/press/files/jp/16451.pdf.

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

29

Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2013). Higashinihon daishinsai ni okeru hisai dobutsu taio kiroku-shu [The chartulary of response to the affected animals in the Great East Japan Earthquake]. [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.env.go.jp/nature/ dobutsu/aigo/2_data/pamph/h2508c/full.pdf. Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2014). Hito to dobutsu ga shiawase ni kurasu shakai no jitsugen purojekuto akushonpuran [Action plan for realizing a society where people and animals to live happily] [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.env.go.jp/nature/ dobutsu/aigo/project/download/actionplan_H26.pdf. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2017a). Saigai-ji ni okeru petto no kyugo taisaku gaidorain no kaitei to ni kakaru dainikai kentokai Giji gaiyo [The proceedings summary of review the second meeting for the revision of “Disaster Measures Guideline for Pet Relief”]. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/ aigo/2_data/saigai_guide/h29_02/h29_02b.pdf. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2017b). Saigai-ji ni okeru petto no kyugo taisaku gaidorain no kaitei to ni kakaru daiikkai kentokai Giji gaiyo [The proceedings summary of review the first meeting for the revision of ‘Disaster Measures Guideline for Pet Relief’]. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/ aigo/2_data/saigai_guide/h29_01/h29_01b.pdf. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2018). Inu neko no hikitoriri oyobi fusho dobutsu no shuyo jokyo [Taking custody of dogs and cats and containment situation of injured animals]. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/aigo/2_data/statistics/ dog-cat.html. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [Kosei Rodo Sho]. (2018). Heisei 29nen kokumin seikatsu kiso chosa no gaikyo [The general conditions of 2017 life basics survey]. Retrieved January 6, 2019, from https://www.mhlw.go. jp/toukei/saikin/hw/k-tyosa/k-tyosa17/dl/10.pdf. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [Kosei Rodo Sho]. (n.d.). Inu no toroku tosu to yobo chusha tosu-to no nenji betsu suii (Showa 35-nen ~ Heisei 29nendo) [Annual transition of the number of registration and vaccination of dogs, 1965–2017 fiscal year]. Retrieved August 15, 2019, from https://www. mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kenkou/kekkaku-kansenshou10/02.html. National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission [Kokkai jikocho Tokyodenryoku Fukushima genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko chosa iinkai hokokusho]. (2012). Hokoku-sho (Report) [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from http://www.mhmjapan.com/con tent/files/00001736/naiic_honpen2_0.pdf.

30

H. KAJIWARA

National Personnel Authority [Jinjiin]. (2019). Minkan kyuyo no jittai [The actual conditions of private company salary] [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.jinji.go.jp/kyuuyo/index_pdf/minn_jittai.pdf. National Police Agency Emergency Disaster Security Headquarters [Keisatsucho kinkyusaigai keibi honbu]. (2019, June 10). Tohoku chiho Taiheiyo oki jishin no keisatsu sochi to higai jokyo [Police measures and damage situation in the Tohoku Earthquake] [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https:// www.npa.go.jp/news/other/earthquake2011/pdf/higaijokyo.pdf. NHK [Nippon Hoso Kyokai Japan Broadcasting Corporation]. (2018). Do herasu? Inu neko no sasshobun - NHK kurozuappu gendai + (Purasu) [How do you reduce it? Slaughter of dogs and cats-NHK close-up nowadays + (plus)]. 24 January 2018. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://serai.jp/ living/167944. Nozawa, K., & Takao, N. (1981) Kachiku to Ningen [Domestic animals and human being]. Tokyo: Idemitsu Shoten. Ota, K. (2012). Machi tsudzukeru dobutsu-tachi Fukushima dai ichi genpatsu 20-kiro ken’nai no sore kara [Animals who keep waiting: And then after that within 20 km of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant]. Tokyo: Asukashinsha. Ozaki, Y. (2004). Petto shiiku no kitei yoin: Nipponban sogo shakai chosa maikurodeta o mochiite [Factors that influence owning pet: By using Micro Data of JGSS]. Seikatsu keizai-gaku kenkyu [Journal of Personal Finance and Economics], 19, 21–34. Ozaki, Y., & Sakurai, F. (2002). Jui-gyo no doko: Kakushu no tokei shiryo kara [Trends in the veterinary industry: From various statistical data]. Nihonjuishikai zasshi [Journal of the Japan Veterinary Medical Association], 55(8), 533–539. Real Estate Economic Institute [Fudosan keizai kenkyujo]. (2008, April 3). Puresu ririsu: Shutoken ni okeru petto shiiku kanona bunjo manshon fukyuritsu chosa [Press release: Diffusion rate survey of pet-friendly condominiums in Tokyo metropolitan areas]. Real Estate Distribution Research Institute, Inc. [Kabushikigaisha fudosan ryutsu kenkyujo]. (2008). Shutoken manshon, “petto shiiku-ka” ga 80-pasento toppa [Metropolitan area apartments, “pet-friendly” over 80%]. https://www.report.net/article/news/0000015467/. Reconstruction Agency [Fukko-cho]. (2018, December 28). Higashinihon daishinsai ni okeru shinsaikanren shi no shisha-su [Number of deaths from disaster-related deaths in the Great East Japan Earthquake] [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/ main-cat2/sub-cat2-6/20181228_kanrenshi.pdf. Ryukyu Shinpo. (2018, August 25). Inu joto 8-wari borantia sasshobun-gen no ura, dantai hihei “kaunara saigomade” [Adaption of dogs, 80% volunteer:

1

JAPANESE ANIMALS IN CALAMITY

31

Behind the reduction of killings, group exhaustion. “If you keep animals, until their end of life”]. Ryukyu Shinpo. Retrieved August 10, 2019 from https:// ryukyushimpo.jp/news/entry-790251.html. Sato, S. (2013). Higashinihon daishinsai to Tokyodenryoku Fukushima dai ichi genpatsu jiko ni tomonau Tohoku no chikusan no genjo to mirai [Current status and the future of Livestock farming after the Great Eastern Japan earthquake]. In H. Yoshino & M. Hino (Ed.), Imawoikiru - Higashinihon daishinsai kara ashita e! Fukko to saisei e no teigen - 5 shizen to kagaku [Living now—From the Great East Japan earthquake to tomorrow! Proposals for reconstruction and regeneration-5. Nature and science] (pp. 23–27). Sendai: Tohokudaigaku shuppan-kai [Tohoku University Press]. Utsunomiya, N. (1999). Petto to Nihonjin [Pet and Japanese]. Tokyo: Bungeisyunjyu. Yamaji, K. (2013). Saigai fukko koei jutaku to petto shiiku no kadai: Higashinihon daishinsai no fukko ni Hanshin Awaji daishinsai, Chuetsu jishin no keiken o ikasu (Tokushu Higashinihon daishinsai to bosai 2) [Disaster reconstruction public housing and pet keeping issues: Leveraging the experience of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake and Chuetsu Earthquake in the reconstruction of the Great East Japan Earthquake (Special issue: The Great East Japan Earthquake and Disaster Prevention 2)]. Hyogo chiri [Hyogo Geography], 58, 1–8. Yano Research Institute Ltd. (2018). Press Release No. 1892 (24 May 2018) Petto bijinesu ni kansuru chosa o jisshi [A survey on pet business was conducted]. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from https://www.yano.co.jp/ press-release/show/press_id/1892.

CHAPTER 2

Methodology

The stories told in this volume emerged from data collected from twentyfive field trips taken between June 2012 and October 2016 to Fukushima, Miyagi, and Iwate prefectures, the primary areas affected by the March 2011 tsunami. In addition, the fieldwork was conducted eight times in the Tokyo area and once in Kansai (Western Japan), since some refugees from Fukushima and animal rescue volunteers live in these areas. The methodology approach taken aims to analyzing the deep structure causing the phenomenon, reflecting personal experiences in disasters. Indeed, Chapters 3 and 5 describe the life stories of two guardians. However, the author aims to concurrently acknowledge the broader context, using data obtained from media reports, observations, and other fieldwork. In doing so, the fieldwork helps to describe personal experiences without separating the “empirical domain “from the “actual domain.” Critical realism, the meta-theory on which this book is based, advocates capturing the world in three domains. The “empirical domain” is a world that people experience with their own eyes. For example, we see orange or yellow leaves in a park in the fall. But even if we are not aware, there are various phenomena around us, such as the leaves falling after we leave the park. This is the “actual domain” that is actually happening. And there are structures and mechanisms that cause people’s experiences and the events around them, such as the senescence of leaves due to a decrease in photosynthetic activity or the fall of substances due to gravity. © The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_2

33

34

H. KAJIWARA

This causal mechanism is called “real domain“ in critical realism. Critical realism is detailed in Chapter 8.

2.1

Semi-structured Interviews

The criterion for choosing the interviewees was that the person was living with a companion animal(s) at the time of March 11, 2011. Since that date, some guardians were able to evacuate with their companion animals, some not; some animals subsequently died or were missing; some guardians adopted new companion animals, some did not. However, even if interviewees did not live with any companion animal at the time of the interview, they were still asked to be representative of a “guardian” because the purpose of this investigation is to explore the experience of guardians and their companion animals during a disaster. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 53 guardians aged 30–85 (comprising 21 males and 32 females), 7 animal rescue volunteers, and 5 other individuals relevant to the research, including a pet beauty parlor owner, a bureaucrat, and a veterinarian. Table 2.1 provides a breakdown of the interviewees. The reason for conducting a semi-structured interview is that it allows people to talk freely about their personal experiences and to offer their own point of view. Although there were pre-written questions to ask the interviewees, when the topic digressed from the main subject, the author attempted to listen well, encouraging them to share and consequently provide rich qualitative data. For example, one interviewee in Fukushima began talking about her experience during the Second World War. It was uncertain for the author how it related to her relationship with animals. But in the end, the author understood that she really wanted to talk about that even when she was poor and hard, she always lived with dogs and cats, and the nuclear disaster was an experience similar to war for her. A book coupon valued at 1000 yen (approximately 9 US Dollars) was handed to the responders in consideration of their cooperation. Alternatively, the author brought a gift of candies or cookies priced around 1000 yen to the interviewees as a thank-you. All interviews were recorded with the signed consent of the interviewees. Among the 53 guardians, the 39 interviews central to the analysis were transcribed. After creating a word-by-word transcript of 39 guardians, the necessary theoretical saturation was ensured to a sufficient extent. Interviews of the remaining 14 owners were documented in detail memo notes, not word-by-word transcript. Also detailed notes were made based on the 12 interviews with various persons, such as the animal rescue

2

METHODOLOGY

35

Table 2.1 Breakdown of the interviewees

Pet Owners

Male

Female

21

32

Under 30

0

Under 30

0

30-50

1

30-50

8

51-64

6

51-64

11

65+

14

65+

13

Iwate

1

Iwate

4

Miyagi

4

Miyagi

10

Fukushima

16

Fukushima

18

Age

Prefectural Distribution

Other interviewees

Total

4

8

25

40

volunteers. For those who described their life story, detailed in Chapters 3 and 5, the interviews were conducted twice and transcripts were made. The interviews were mainly conducted at the temporary housing where the refugees were living. In the cases of Fukushima prefecture, sometimes the interviews were conducted at the guardians’ abandoned homes in the evacuated areas, as the government had given permission to enter during the day. A few guardians invited the author to their new houses, which they had purchased in outside of the contaminated areas. Most interviews were conducted in the small living room and often family members were in attendance, an inevitability when visiting temporary housing that limits number of rooms available for use. Indeed, the Japanese government had initially stipulated in the Disaster Relief Act that the size of temporary housing to be at a maximum of 29.7 square meters. The cost per house was set at about 2,400,000 yen (approximately 22,100 US Dollars) or less (ibid.). The temporary houses are provided free of charge by the local government to refugees for up to 2 years and 3 months. However, many criticized this as too poor a standard, and subsequently in 2017, the Japanese government changed the law. At present, prefectural governors can set the size of temporary housing

36

H. KAJIWARA

according to the local circumstances and household composition, etc. (see Fukuda 2017). When the spouses, parents, or older children were present, they would sometimes participate in the interview by expressing their own opinions. In such cases, they were counted as individual interviewees. However, when a family member sat in company with us and spoke infrequently and just chimed in, they were not counted as interviewees. In most cases, the companion animals (which were all either cats or dogs) were also present at the interview. If the dog was kept in an outside kennel, or if the guardian left the animal in the evacuation area and would visit to feed them, the author would attempt to visit the pet after the interview. If the companion animal died or was missing, the author asked the guardian to show me the animal’s photograph. In addition to formal interviews, the author visited the interviewees in an informal way whenever possible. The author asked to the owners about the health status of the companion animal and listened about life events and changes in feelings in the prolonged evacuation life. Sometimes the author walked a dog with an interviewee or played with the interviewee’s cat. These informal conversations were useful in providing further insights about the interviewee’s experiences. A snowball sample was used for each of the temporary housing complexes, nine in total, in the three prefectures. The interviewees were sought out and found with the assistance of the complex’s leader, who introduced me to a resident, who then introduced me to another, and so on. This proved to be a straightforward process because the leader had already built close ties with all the residents in their often highly populated complex, and they could therefore identity potential interviewees with ease. Another approach the author took was to called out to and approach owners as they walked their dog. This was only done after receiving permission from the complex’s chairman or the support staff who were employed by local government. Furthermore, the author accompanied the volunteers to assist in the feeding activity in the areas where residents were evacuated due to radioactive contamination. During the survey period, several volunteer groups were carrying out a “feeding activity” to carry the pet food to the companion animals who were left behind. They carry a large amount of pet food in their cars and travel from 20 to 30 houses a day. The author occasionally met the guardians who came home for a while for caring for animals and looking around the house and could make an appointment for an interview.

2

METHODOLOGY

37

The reasons why there is a skewed representation, with a majority of elderly people as interviewees, are as follows. Firstly, the Tohoku region (Northeast Japan) possesses a declining birthrate and aging population, and the population of the temporary housing complexes, where most of our interviewees are from, is particularly skewed toward the elderly. Japan as a whole has the most age-advanced population in the world, with 26 percent of Japanese aged over 65 in 2014 (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan 2015), and the Tohoku region in particular has the highest proportion of an age-advanced demographic compared to other regions. Moreover, according to the Miyagi government, in 2014 43.8% of the people in the prefecture’s temporary housing complexes were over 65 years of age (Miyagi Prefecture 2014: 2). According to the leader of one temporary housing complex investigated, 70% of the residents were aged over 60. Secondly, elderly people living with their pets are concentrated in the public facilities because they are often refused accommodation by the owners of private rental apartments. Conversations with government officials and other volunteers indicated that the experiences gleaned from the snowball sample were not unusual.

2.2

Observations

In between interviews, the author would spend time at the temporary housing complexes, often sitting on one of the benches placed in an open area of the complex. This allowed me to observe people and their companion animals, many of whom walked their dogs and some of whom walked their cats around the complex. These observations afforded me insight into the interactions between people, people and animals, and animals. In addition, the author participated in both formal and informal gatherings and meetings held in the temporary housing complexes as much as possible. At one housing block there was an opportunity for the author to participate in the summer festival; at another, karaoke singing; and at one temporary housing facility in Fukushima, the opportunity to talk and sing songs with the residents at a cafe, which was run by volunteers twice a week. Furthermore, the author volunteered in activities Trap-NeuterReturn (TNR) for cats, also feeding and walking shelter dogs in the evacuated areas in Fukushima. TNR that is the humane neutering and management of stray cats has recently become known in Japan.

38

H. KAJIWARA

2.3

Quantitative Survey

As a result of the tsunami, the Fukushima region experienced the additional effects of a nuclear disaster and therefore requires further investigation. To further supplement the qualitative data, a quantitative survey was complete by 74 pet owners from Fukushima between October 2015 and September 2016, administered through an interview method. Evacuation due to a nuclear disaster is a peculiar situation: Although residents’ houses remain, people cannot live in their homes due to radioactive contamination. While many animals are left in the evacuation areas for various reasons, little study has been done to understand this unusual situation where guardians and their companion animals are separated. Therefore, a questionnaire was conducted using an interview survey method in order to apprehend and glean information about the practice of pet-keeping in areas affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster and to understand how the owners responded to the evacuation order. Overall, this survey allowed me to comprehend a rough picture of the experience of pet owners and their companion animals in the Fukushima area. The questionnaire surveys were conducted at 16 temporary housing complexes in Fukushima Prefecture and in various evacuee communities in the Tokyo area. All questionnaires were conducted by the author herself, and a ballpoint pen containing the name of Rikkyo University was handed to the responders in consideration of their cooperation.

2.4

Additional Fieldwork

Additional fieldwork was conducted in the Tokyo area, where many victims evacuated to after the tsunami instigated the Fukushima nuclear disaster. A large number of the refugees are suing Tokyo Electric Power Company and the Japanese government, claiming damages. The author participated in three rallies for the refugees and attended the trials on four occasions. The trial is currently ongoing, and the author is continuing to attend the rallies and the trials as much as possible. Throughout these activities, field notes based on my observations at were taken. This additional fieldwork allowed the author to gain a more objective overview of the nuclear disaster. It was valuable for describing not only the world experienced by the guardians, but also the “actual domain” in critical realism, that is, the actual events. As well as it helped to infer causal mechanisms.

2

2.5

METHODOLOGY

39

Ethical Considerations

The interviewees were promised confidentiality and anonymity. They were told that their participation was voluntary, and that they could withdraw from the research at any time. Two copies of the consent form were signed by the interviewer and the interviewee, with one copy remaining with each party. The interview records were carefully kept in order to protect the interviewees’ privacy. First, after transcribing the interviews or making notes, a unique code was assigned for each interview record so that the transcribed notes would not reveal who the interviewees were. Second, the transcribed notes and interview audio records were stored separately in locked locations. Third, only the author would have access to the original data, although the transcripts, which are in Japanese, might be made available to committed researchers after a set period of time. Finally, a letter of the alphabet was assigned to each interviewee in this volume. Although a fictitious name was assigned to a pet, an English name was given for an animal with an English name and likewise a Japanese name was given for an animal with a Japanese name. The author did not choose to give interviewees Japanese pseudonym. Of course, if you give a general name such as Tanaka or Takahashi, we can feel the personality of the interviewees more human like. Usually, that method tends to be more preferable. However, the reasons for keeping them alphabet name in this book are as follows. Firstly, given the large number of interviewees mentioned subsequently, too many Japanese names will confuse readers unnecessarily. Secondly, it is true that there are very few variations in family names, especially in the rural areas of Fukushima. Giving them each different pseudonyms would seem to rather give an unnatural impression for those who know the local situation. Therefore, the alphabets were assigned arbitrarily.1 However, Ryoichi Suzuki and Hitomi Sato, who give an account of their life story in particular detail in Chapter 3 and in Chapter 5, are excluded from anonymity. The author confirmed their intention several times during multiple interviews; however, with pride they said they want to share their experiences in the disaster with many people. In such a case, using a pseudonym to protect privacy is to not to respect that individual and their wishes.

40

H. KAJIWARA

Note 1. The interviewees in Miyagi Prefecture were assigned AM, BM, … The interviewees in Iwate Prefecture were assigned AI, BI, … The interviewees in Fukushima Prefecture were assigned AF, BF, … In regard to Fukushima, AAF, BBF were used after ZF.

References Literature in Japanese Cabinet Office, Government of Japan [Naikakufu]. (2015). Heisei 27-nenban korei shakai hakusho (zentai-ban) : Dai 1-sho korei-ka no jokyo [2015 White Paper on Aging Society (whole version): Chapter 1 Aging situation]. Retrieved January 17, 2020, from https://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/whitep aper/w-2015/zenbun/pdf/1s1s_1.pdf. Fukuda, T. (2017). Okyu kasetsu jutaku seido no genjo to kadai [Current status and issues of the temporary housing system]. Chosa to joho [Issue brief], 966, 1–14. Miyagi Prefecture. (2014). Heisei 26-nendo okyu kasetsu jutaku (purehabu) nyukyo-sha kenko chosa kekka no gaiyo [Summary of 2014 resident health survey results in temporary housing (prefabricated)] [Pdf file]. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://www.pref.miyagi.jp/uploaded/life/312784_ 396341_misc.pdf.

PART II

The Tsunami in Iwate and Miyagi Prefectures

CHAPTER 3

Everything I Did Was for Baron

This chapter describes Mr. Ryoichi Suzuki’s experience following the tsunami that struck his coastal town Sendai in Miyagi Prefecture in March 2011. The area called Arahama where Ryoichi lived is in Wakabayashi Ward in Sendai City. Wakabayashi is one of the five wards that compose Sendai City. Arahama literally means rough beach. Ryoichi along with his wife Yayoi and Shih Tzu dog Baron barely survived the disaster. Since companion animals were not allowed in the initial accommodation for refugees, Ryoichi and his wife spent two months in their car with Baron before moving into temporary housing. Once accepted into the temporary housing complex, Ryoichi worked hard to establish a pet-centered community. The most noteworthy aspect of Ryoichi’s story during and after the disaster is that he always made decisions that prioritized Baron. His story is representative of those for whom their companion animal sits in the center of their life. I visited Ryoichi and Yayoi for the first time in August 2013—almost two and a half years after the Great East Japan Earthquake—when he was living in the temporary housing inside of Sendai City, which had been provided by the Miyagi Prefectural Government.1 Sendai is the largest city in the Tohoku region (or Northeast Japan) and has a population of 1.09 million. When the temporary housing complexes in Sendai were dismantled in March 2017, all of the evacuees were moved to new accommodation. © The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_3

43

44

H. KAJIWARA

However, when I began my investigation in August 2013, 2360 people were living temporary housing complexes situated in nineteen locations across the city (Miyagi Prefecture Health and Welfare Department Earthquake Disaster Relief Room 2013: 1). “Temporary Housing A” where Ryoichi was living at the time of my investigations was the first temporary housing built in Sendai. Due to the promises with the other interviewees, the exact location or the official name cannot be revealed. It was made up of 233 housing units grouped together. Temporary Housing A was conveniently located a mere fiveminute walk from the local station and a few train stops from Sendai Station. The quiet residential area around the station was lined with detached houses, and there was a large supermarket and a convenience store at the station. Temporary Housing A was situated on an empty street running parallel to the elevated train tracks. It consisted of approximately 40 cream, narrow single-story buildings, like extended shipping containers, lined up one after another (see Photo 3.1). Each building

Photo 3.1 Temporary Housing A complex in Miyagi Prefecture (Source Author’s fieldwork on August 10, 2013)

3

EVERYTHING I DID WAS FOR BARON

45

was divided into either a 1DK unit (“wan dike”—one bedroom with a dining room) or 2DK unit (“ni dike”—two bedroom with a dining room) depending upon the size of the occupying family. Covered with corrugated iron sheets and anchored to the ground by black and yellow cables, the buildings looked very makeshift. The drabness was broken only by the bright, colorful pictures of animals and trees, which had been drawn on each unit’s outside wall that faced the road. They were completely different from most Japanese homes, they simply looked like boxes. However, even in extraordinary times, people were carrying on normal daily life. The laundry was hung out the back of many units, and children’s bicycles could be seen parked next to the air conditioning unit that articulated the “backyard” boundary of each apartment. The interview was recorded in the living room of the unit in which Ryoichi lived with his wife and dog. Ryoichi’s unit had two small rooms, a kitchen, and bathroom. He had used one room as living space and the other as a bedroom. Ryoichi and I sat across from each other on the tatami mat, separated by a small rectangular table. His wife Yayoi, aged 69, joined us at the table, and kept herself busy serving tea and small Japanese cakes. She often carefully fulfilled in the blanks in Ryoichi’s accounts. The interview was interrupted several times by people knocking on the door or by the phone ringing. Indeed, a courier service dropped off a package, and at one point Ryoichi had to momentarily leave for a meeting regarding the temporary housing. These various disruptions revealed the extent to which this couple was actively involved in a number of networks inside and outside the temporary housing complex. Ryoichi talks clearly, briskly, and colorfully; his language peppered with a certain coarseness. One sensed his leadership abilities when talking with him. He could command an audience.

3.1

Companion Animals as “Kasugai ”

Ryoichi was born and raised in Tokyo. As an employee of a large company he was frequently transferred from one location to another, resulting in his family having to move to a new house on a number of occasions. Although those recurring transfers made it difficult to have a companion animal, he had always wanted to live with a dog. He had been thinking for some time that “his dog” would be a Shih Tzu. When Ryoichi retired from the company in 1999 he had just turned 58 years old. Using some of his retirement money, he built a house by

46

H. KAJIWARA

the seaside near Sendai and moved there with Yayoi. While working for his company, Ryoichi had at one point been assigned to work in Sendai for seven and a half years. Both he and his wife had become fond of the food and climate of the area and decided that it was where they wished to settle down. Although their three sons and all their relatives argued against making such a move and having to start a new life, the couple remained firmly committed to their plans for retirement. Their singlestory house was a timber structure with a large deck. Ryoichi laid a lawn in the backyard and cared for it; Yayoi grew wild grasses and flowers in her garden. Together they acquired a small puppy from a friend, and the Shih Tzu became part of their family. They named the new member—their son—“Baron.” Initially their life near the seaside revolved around their new puppy. They spent a good proportion of their time toilet training Baron and taking him for his daily walk. Ryoichi was usually the one who took Baron for walks and Yayoi would have Baron beside her when they slept. Ryoichi recounted those early days of knowing and interacting with Baron as follows: Baron was a very stubborn boy. How can I say it? He tantalized or teased me. When we went for his daily walk, he would always go ahead of me. He understood the command to wait but would not let me catch up. Instead, he would wait some 20 or 30 meters ahead and do a little Cha Cha dance. But as soon as I moved towards him, he would quickly reposition himself another 20 or 30 meters ahead. That was Baron.

Yayoi interjected with laughter: When we walked Baron each day, we would say hello to neighbours walking past. Baron kept his distance [because he was a little hesitant around other people] but waited patiently for us. Whenever I was in the garden, he stood by me like a gatekeeper. And when I saw my grandchildren, I sometimes made mistakes: I would call my grandchildren “Baron” instead of their name.

Yayoi and Ryoichi had a much closer relationship with Baron than with their grandchildren, which reveals the great extent of their love for him. But knowing that this strong affection for an animal may be misunderstood and perceived as a lack of common sense by the general public, Yayoi’s account of incorrectly naming her grandchildren was said

3

EVERYTHING I DID WAS FOR BARON

47

surrounded in laughter as though it were a joke. Indeed, in this study, the interviewees often laugh when they express how intensely they care for their dog or cat. As Charles and Davies (2008) discuss, the use of laughter could reflect an owner’s ambivalence about revealing their close relationship with their companion animals. It’s possible that the interviewees use laughter as a defense because this strong affection for their pet may be considered a deviant behavior. On the other hand, it could be said that for some, their laughter is indicative of the joy and fun they experience when talking about their animals (see also Cudworth 2018). In this interview in particular with Ryoichi and Yayoi, they even go so far as to laugh when recalling their experience in the midst of a natural disaster. Also other interviewees who survived the tsunami have same tendency. While it may seem jarring to put tragedy and comedy together, it could be said that this couple not only exude a naturally positive disposition, but also use laughter as a mechanism for dealing with their past trauma. In this investigation, often the owners who escaped their life threat at the last minute laughed and spoke about the story. Laughing when the tragedy is too big may be Japanese or Oriental tendency. They continued to talk various aspects of their life, but the conversation always returned to the subject of Baron. For example, when Ryoichi talked about his family, he easily linked his comments back to Baron. “When our children were young, we would always talk about them. But our three sons have grown up and so we started a new life here [in Sendai] – just the two of us. So Baron was definitely, well… a ‘kasugai’.

A “kasugai” is a clamp or clasp. Here Ryoichi uses the term metaphorically as something that binds a husband and wife together, helping them overcome difficulties in their marriage. There is a Japanese proverb that states “a child is a couple’s kasugai,” and indeed, Baron was a “kasugai” for Ryoichi and Yayoi.

3.2

How My Dog Saved My Life

On March 11, 2011, Ryoichi and Yayoi drove Baron to a veterinary hospital in the center of Sendai City for treatment. Although Baron loved walking in the grass, the pollen and dirt sometimes got in his eyes causing them to react and bulge, which is a common occurrence for Shih Tzus. That afternoon after Baron’s medical examination they all went to the

48

H. KAJIWARA

supermarket. Ryoichi was waiting in the car with Baron while Yayoi did the shopping, when, at 2:46 p.m. the earthquake occurred. Suddenly the small car felt as though it was being bounced up and down. Laughing, Ryoichi remembered the moments that followed: I held Baron and kept pressing the brake pedal in a car. Baron was very quiet, but I began to think that perhaps we were in harm’s way. A telegraph pole could just a suddenly fall and crush our small car. I began to weigh up the pro and cons of crawling under our car. But before I could decide on a course of action, Yayoi came scrambling out of the supermarket.

To which Yayoi added, [When I was in the store] some guy who sounded like a manager suddenly began shouting, “Everyone, please get out of the building!” [Laughs] The shoppers began to head for the exit shouting, “Quake! Earthquake!” [Laughs again]. At last we could get out. When I finally got out to the parking lot, our car was jumping all over the place like this, you know? [She waves her hand up and down] I was worried about whether Baron was all right. At last the earthquake began to settle down and I got into our car.

In the supermarket, every merchandise flew in the air. Yayoi got out the supermarket almost on all fours. The shaking was so severe that it was difficult to stand straight. It was, of course, a fear experience, but it also had a slapstick comedy element that was like everyday life’s order become upside down. From this perspective, her laugh could be understandable. Ryoichi and Yayoi quickly drove to home 800 meters away from the beach quickly to check whether any damage had been done to their house. Leaving Baron in the car, they made a hasty round of the house, noting that various things had been knocked onto the floor and scattered about. Water was spouting from the broken toilet and had to be turned off. The radio was on and repeatedly warning citizens that a sizable tsunami was on its way. They recalled news of the earthquake in Chile the month before when residents were similarly warned and so evacuated to higher ground only for nothing to happen. Nevertheless, they decided to evacuate and drove off with Baron, leaving their home behind. Ryoichi recollects that moment as follows:

3

EVERYTHING I DID WAS FOR BARON

49

Looking back now, the reason we escaped death was due, how can I say it, to a kind of providence that I attribute to Baron. Perhaps it was an uneasiness regarding Baron’s welfare. Because we left Baron in the car [and weren’t sure whether to bring him inside or not], Yayoi and I debated whether we should go or stay. Then we quickly decided to go with Baron – “Yes, let’s go!” I think that Baron told us that we should run away immediately. The reason we survived is Him! [At this moment, Ryoichi pointed to the photograph of a Shih Tzu].

While Ryoichi can appreciate the logic of evacuating that comes with hindsight, he feels as though Baron was the reason they were able to escape together and in a timely fashion. Yayoi usually takes the car to go shopping in the early afternoon. As they only have one car, on any other day Ryoichi and Baron would not have had any means of escape. And even if Yayoi had returned, they might not have been able to reconnect if Ryoichi and Baron had been out on a walk. Ryoichi feels that these two simple events—Baron’s appointment with the veterinarian and the anxiety he felt leaving Baron in their car—saved his life. The following reveals his gratitude to Baron for saving them: “We went to the animal hospital for his eye on that day by chance. Though it may be said I added the reason afterwards, I wanted to find the meaning for why we were able to survive. I think we were saved probably on that day because Baron was there.” The only things that Ryoichi and Yayoi loaded into the car before leaving were pet food and pet sheets to absorb excrement for Baron. Baron sat in the front passenger seat, and Yayoi got climbed into the rear seat as usual. There was no high ground in the vicinity, but Ryoichi drove the car at a reasonable speed thinking that he would soon reach Sendai Eastern Road, which is on an embankment, where he thought they could survive. Then he realized that the driver behind was flashing its headlights. “The person behind me was telling me go quickly! Yayoi looked out the back window and shouted, ‘Oh my god, it’s the tsunami!’” Yayoi interjected, “I told him to hurry up. But he said he wanted to see it too. Can you believe that! I told him to just keep going, keep going! [laughs].” Ryoichi continued, “Then the people in the car ahead of us also noticed the danger and sped up. That road was a prefectural road that only the local residents like us knew.” As they drove, Yayoi continued to watch the tsunami silently creeping closer and closer. The tsunami looked like a black asphalt carpet be slowly rolled out in their direction. Yayoi desperately spurred Ryoichi on. The arterial road was congested with traffic,

50

H. KAJIWARA

but Ryoichi drove down the uncrowded prefectural road at full speed and they were able to get across the Sendai Eastern Road before they were swallowed up by the water.

3.3

The Sudden Exclusion

After escaping from the tsunami Ryoichi and Yayoi spent the night in the parking lot of Wakabayashi post office in Sendai City, huddled in their car and holding Baron in their arms. The Wakabayashi post office was about 6 km inland from the Arahama coast and was safe from the tsunami. Baron, who is usually a bit unsettled, passed the night quietly in the unfamiliar circumstances. As Ryoichi commented, with a mix of laughter and emotional tears, “He was quiet, very quiet. Why was he so well behaved? Maybe he understood that his parents were themselves doing all the worrying.” Ryoichi and Yayoi spent the night shivering in their car, staying tuned to the radio until four or five in the morning. That night they realized they would not be able to return home and that they would have to show up at one of the emergency refuge centers that were being set up for tsunami victims. They found an elementary school nearby and inquired there. In any case there was not enough petrol in the car to drive much further. However, it turned out that elementary school was an emergency refuge for locals and not for people from the Ryoichi’s seaside district. Moreover, people whose homes were in immediate danger of complete collapse were being given first preference and the queue was steadily piling up. Nevertheless, when Yayoi asked a representative at the refuge’s entrance whether they could enter this refuge even though they lived in the beachside suburb Arahama, she was told it would be okay to enter. When she informed the representative that they had a small dog with them, he was quick to reassure them that they need not worry. Ryoichi and Yayoi fondly remember an elderly woman with a dog then offering us a blanket and a few other necessities. In their case, immediately post-tsunami guardians and companion animals entered the shelter together without any problems or opposition. Approximately 30 dogs had refuge with their owners at that particular elementary school, and one classroom was assigned solely to people who had escaped with companion animals, and a stove was supplied for their use. According to Ryoichi, the principal of the elementary school had onsite authority for a few days. About one week later, the decision-making authority was transferred to “chonaikai” (the local residents’ association).

3

EVERYTHING I DID WAS FOR BARON

51

Decisions regarding animals depended on the person in charge of the refugee accommodation, and there were several sites where companion animals were refused. Ryoichi admitted that they had been extremely lucky, acknowledging that at some refugees had to part with their pets and leave the animal alone in their car. Although all kinds of pets were allowed in the room designated to pet owners, Ryoichi noted that only dogs and their owners stayed there. Many cat owners tried to avoid mixing their cats with the dogs. During the first ten days of their stay, Ryoichi and Yayoi felt safe in the school because they were warm and could stay together with Baron. However, the earthquake had caused structural damage to the elementary school, and the Sendai government judged that it was too dangerous to serve as a long-term refuge. Consequently, after ten days or so, everyone in the elementary school had to move into a gymnasium owned by the Wakabayashi Ward government. When it became clear to authorities that the Suzukis had a dog, the couple were told that Baron would not be allowed in the gymnasium. They were advised that Baron could stay in their car, which was in the gymnasium’s parking lot. Ryoichi managed to find another refuge-gymnasium, but when he asked the person in charge about accommodation for Baron, he was told that the dogs would have to be kept in a cage outside. Believing that Baron would die if kept outside in a cage— if not from the cold, then from the psychological trauma that would be caused by being locked up in a tiny cage. Ryoichi and Yayoi faced a difficult decision. Baron was a small, older dog that had been kept indoors his whole life and putting him outside on his own at the end of March in Sendai would put his life at risk. Although not ideal, the obvious choice was the first Wakabayashi gymnasium. A government official gave Ryoichi five liters of petrol so he could drive to the Wakabayashi gymnasium. As soon as they arrived, they felt the huge difference between the elementary school, in which Baron could stay inside with them, and the Wakabayashi gymnasium where no dogs were allowed inside. In Ryoichi’s words, There was even a stove [in the elementary school]. And, appropriately, the companion animals and owners were separated from those without pets. The various animals became good friends [laughs]. But in the Wakabayashi gymnasium, the sign read “Animals banned”. We had no choice. We took turns staying in the car with Baron out in the parking lot. Inside the

52

H. KAJIWARA

gymnasium, we were making do with only with one blanket and no partitions for privacy. Yayoi and I spent one and a half months there… I argued with the person in charge of the gymnasium, pleading with him to allow us [all the pet owners] to have our animals in the meeting room on the second floor of the gymnasium from around 11:00 p.m. until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. They repeatedly said, “No!” and we were at a standstill.

The Sendai government had a bylaw to establish a protocol for dealing with companion animals during disaster evacuations. In 1999, the city began holding training sessions to inform citizens with pets how they should evacuate with their companion animals (Sendai City 2014: 32). Moreover, since 2005, the city municipality organized evacuation drills each June for those with pets. The drills involved city government officials, veterinarians, and volunteers who ran an animal shelter (Kameda 2014: 15), who all formed a cohesive team that could deal with such emergencies. However, following the March 2011 tsunami, the treatment afforded to guardians and their companion animals varied from one emergency shelter to another. Some refuges allowed pets and others did not. Even when pets were allowed, the rules differed as to whether the guardians and companion animals could stay together or not. Some sites where pets were not allowed inside permitted guardians to leash their animal outside and yet others did not. The situation was different in each location, and the chain of command regarding the treatment of companion animals and their owners was not clear. In reality, what happened on the ground depended largely on the whims of the leader at each location (Iwakura 2014: 34). When Ryoichi proposed to the director of the Wakabayashi gymnasium that guardians be allowed to stay inside with their dogs during the night, he was given various reasons the suggestion would not be entertained. First, there were some people with animal allergies. The director also fell back on the “rules” for the gymnasium that existed before the tsunami, which clearly prohibited animals from being in the building. Ryoichi said there were several other guardians who consequently opted to stay in the car with their pets at nighttime. However, Ryoichi was unable to lie down in his small vehicle, let alone sleep. It was so cold that frost formed on the car windows, making it impossible to see outside. About a month after the tsunami in the middle of April, some members of veterinarian society and an animal protection group visited the refuge. They brought care packages that included pet food and pet sheets to

3

EVERYTHING I DID WAS FOR BARON

53

absorb excrement. The veterinarians gave each animal a physical checkup. Volunteers from an animal support group came to the refuge several times afterward. They seemed to have taken it upon themselves to advocate on behalf of the guardians and negotiate that either owners and pets stay inside together or that they be allowed to pitch a tent in the parking lot. However, these negotiations made little headway. The fatigue of the living back and forth between the gym and the car accumulated and was felt by Ryoichi, Yayoi, and Baron. Finally, one of Ryoichi’s friends recommended staying for a short while at his villa in Shirakawa, a city in Fukushima Prefecture. Ryoichi reflected, I was worn out, and so was Baron. So, alright, let’s do it! We decided to take up the invitation. We ended up staying there for around two weeks, didn’t we? [He turned to Yayoi for her nod of acknowledgement] We “borrowed” the friend’s villa in Shirakawa and took this little fella with us. I was able to top up the car’s petrol and drove Yayoi and Baron to the villa. But I had to make sure to keep my ear to the ground in order to pick up various information about Sendai.

Therefore, Ryoichi drove Yayoi and Baron 170 kilometers away to a villa in Shirakawa City, Fukushima Prefecture, and immediately returned to the gymnasium in Sendai. Shirakawa City is 100 km away from the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant, so the level of radioactive contamination was relatively low. According to Yayoi, during their two weeks at the villa, Baron clearly felt at home and happily ran about in the fresh wind in the villa’s large garden. After the short break at the villa, Ryoichi picked up Yayoi and Baro, the three of them made their way back to the gymnasium and resumed their life as evacuees. The Suzuki family felt is necessary to return as the administration held frequent briefings and made announcements; accordingly, refugees, including Ryoichi and Yayoi, felt the need to be at the gym at all times so as not to miss any information about support, compensation, temporary housing, and other tsunami-related matters. At one such briefing in early April 2011 they received information about the first temporary housing in Sendai: Temporary Housing A. However, no mention was made of companion animals. Ryoichi recalled the meeting and his initial concerns about Temporary Housing A, At the gathering of about 300 to 400 people I raised my hand and said I had a question. I asked the officer if it would be okay for us to have our

54

H. KAJIWARA

dog live with us in the unit. His reply was that he would come back with an answer in a week’s time and he went on and on blah, blah, blah. But when they put an announcement on the bulletin board, we were delighted to read “Pets allowed”. And that is how we arrived here where we are now living.

Ryoichi told me that he had the feeling that the city authorities had never considered the likelihood that companion animals would be living in temporary housing until he asked. It’s like they’d never thought about it. It was only because I complained with strong language! “You’re fucking kidding me!” I told them. “The pet and I are one in body and spirit. What have you to say about that?” I told them straight out. They said they would let us know one week later after considering all the issues. Consider? That meant they had never given the possibility a thought. To be fair, this was the first temporary housing to be made available, and we were told that the other places will not permit pets. Later, however, all of the temporary housing became the pets friendly, you know. So we jumped at the chance to get into the first temporary housing block, only later to find out that we messed up. The buildings here are such poor quality. If only we had known. But how were we to know? The government was making up policies as it went.

Ultimately all temporary housing in Sendai came to allow companion animals. However, in the early days the available information presented a confused picture. Like Ryoichi and Yayoi, some people heard from city officials that only Temporary Housing A accepted companion animals, and so many people moved there on the sole basis that they could be with their companion animal. Ryoichi continued to explain that the houses in Temporary Housing A are all prefabricated. At the time, the government departments focused more on the speed of construction rather than on the livability of the units themselves. The temporary housing in Arai district were built later and with more care, making them comfortable and resident-friendly with their big sash windows, and floors that are easier to clean. However, for Ryoichi and Yayoi, the main concern when making their decisions after the disaster was Baron. Ryoichi laughed as he confessed that he did not care for Yayoi so much as he remained centered on the well-being of Baron: “The reason we came here was for Baron. And I borrowed the

3

EVERYTHING I DID WAS FOR BARON

55

villa from my friend for him. And I fought with the administration for Baron… Everything was for him.” Ryoichi and Yayoi applied to live in Temporary Housing A and moved there with Baron in early May 2011. According to Ryoichi and Yayoi, when they moved into their unit Baron stubbornly refused to enter their new home. Even after a few months later, Ryoichi noted that Baron always turned his head toward the East. Ryoichi wonders whether Baron might somehow have smelled the sea, and that he might have wanted to return to their original house, as Baron did not know it was destroyed.

3.4

Community and Pets in Temporary Housing

When Temporary Housing A was opened in April 2011, only a few people applied. Though Temporary Housing A was conveniently located in the suburbs near Sendai’s central city, the set of 233 units was unpopular. Only the Suzukis along with 26 other households moved in by the beginning of May 2011. One of the reasons for this was that the city required “community tenanting.” That meant that ten families had to move in as one set. Ten families allowed to move in were given one of 233 containertype homes by the Sendai City government, depending on the number of families. If one family has many members, there are cases the family could have two box-shaped houses. The rent for temporary housing provided by the executive branch is basically free for two years. The measure was designed to avoid having families living in relative isolation in different parts of the estate. However, that posed several difficulties. First and foremost, families with different preferences and different needs were compelled to live as close neighbors. Moreover, due to the frantic nature of the disaster and trying to find a safe evacuation site, residents who had lived in the same area prior to the tsunami had become scattered across the prefecture. It was not easy for evacuees to form a team of ten families, less so with people they knew well. Furthermore, Temporary Housing A was inland, at least 10 kilometers from refugees’ homes by the seaside. Many of the survivors did not like the thought of being separated from the seaside, and instead wanted to remain close to their homes. Some people did not even apply to Temporary Housing A, instead opting to find a place closer to the seaside. In reality, the “community tenanting” that the city government required was a failure. In response to the small number of applicants, the city government dropped the “community tenanting” requirement when it floated its

56

H. KAJIWARA

second offer of temporary housing in May 2011. As a result, another 143 households moved to Temporary Housing A. In June 2011, the block was opened to those who had lived outside Miyagi Prefecture. Consequently, some of the families that had been evacuated from Fukushima owing to the nuclear accident came to settle in Temporary Housing A. As residents from various background flowed into Temporary Housing A, tensions began to emerge. Some families simply disposed of their garbage in the wrong place or parked their car inappropriately. One person was habitually drunk and disorderly. Others did not properly clean up the excrement left by their dogs. Then the area had an outbreak of mosquitoes, fleas, and mites. Pet ownership also became a sore point and complaints began to pour in from the residents who had no pets. Ryoichi had a calm life before the earthquake struck: Each day he enjoyed watching television and going for walks with Baron. Yayoi commented that he spent a good part of each day at home relaxing in his pajamas. But after moving to the temporary housing, he began to feel extremely stressed. He worried that the situation could easily get out of control with the block turning into slum. In August 2011, he took the initiative of trying to establish a residents’ association for everyone living in Temporary Housing A and creating a governing board that would oversee issues pertaining to the residents and their behaviors. All the residents consented to the governing board meeting, and at the board’s general meeting on March 11, 2012—exactly one year after the tsunami— the residents’ association was officially established. Ryoichi commented on the establishment of the association, The board members acted together with the same purpose in mind. There were the aunties [middle-aged women] who did not want this place to become a “lawless area”. Mr. EM [president of the neighborhood association at the time of the interview] is probably thinking along those lines too.

In the autumn of 2011, Ryoichi and a female resident—Ms. KM— joined together to form a club for pet owners living in Temporary Housing A. The goal was to form an organization that would educate pet owners about manners and habits, particularly regarding their pets, helping them become more agreeable to neighbors. At the time 60 of the 233 households living there had companion animals, and the club was an important step for pet owners to alter their behavior. Ryoichi recalled,

3

EVERYTHING I DID WAS FOR BARON

57

Ah yes, the pets club! Founding the club was forming a friendship circle and then expanding the circle. I intended for that, because we were initially all strangers. We can’t be connected if we don’t share the same hobby or some other the common interest. Otherwise, you know, we have no idea what the neighbors are doing.

To prepare for their first meeting with the residents Ryoichi and Ms. KM investigated the types and number of animals residing in Temporary Housing A, and compiled a list of the guardians. They then began to organize activities with volunteers from the nonprofit organization ACUBE. The group was actively engaged in activities to support affected pet owners in Sendai City (see A-CUBE, n.d.). The organization was supporting pet owners living in temporary housing across the city. The pet club’s initial activities included cleaning up the excrement of dogs and mowing lawns around the temporary housing block. They also carried out a training program to improve the behavior of owners and their animals. Though pets had to be kept inside in the temporary housing complex, several owners did not know how to live with their animals indoors and were consequently provided with the necessary counseling. The benefits of the pet club produced twofold. One outcome was a much cleaner environment. The other was that relationships among residents (both pet owners and non-pet owners) deepened, fostering the kind of community that Ryoichi had envisaged. Moreover, other clubs sprang up in Temporary Housing A, bringing together persons who for example shared an interest in ceramic art or the French language. The environment of Temporary Housing A was improved remarkably by the activities of the pet club. As the grounds around the temporary housing complex became noticeably cleaner, however, residents began to notice that dog droppings were being left behind persons living outside the complex. Ryoichi touched on that problem: We were confident that the feces did not come from here. But people still blamed us. So, what did we do? We cleaned up the mess made by other peoples’ dogs as well. [Laughs]… It was pretty straightforward. If that kind of unfounded criticism of our residents was simply left to continue, pets will be excluded from all public housing. That’s why I argued that we must train ourselves to be overly disciplined so we can qualify for public housing whenever such facilities become available. To this day I continue to share that view with everybody I meet.

58

H. KAJIWARA

Ryoichi felt he was always having to argue and negotiate with administrative staff in order for Yayoi and him to be able to continue living with Baron. He was always worrying about when the time would come for the guardians to leave the temporary housing and make their move to municipal housing for disaster reconstruction where he would potentially again have to fight for the right to keep Baron. Accordingly, his efforts were done not only with his fellow residents in mind, but also with the views of those in the larger community living outside Temporary Housing A in mind. Indeed, while Ryoichi was advocating for guardians and their companion animals, he was also concerned about ensuring that the tsunami evacuees were included into the community: I was concerned about our neighbors living outside the block… I tried to open their minds as much as possible. For example, the wall abutting the road at the end of each set of units became the place for the bright pictures of animals… I asked for those wall to be painted that way. I thought this temporary housing must present itself as a bright and cheerful place. It was a kind of invitation to the public, a message to the others to come over to visit our Temporary Housing A!

An independent spirit seems to drive Ryoichi’s mind. He is always looking for ways local resident can motivate themselves to engage in constructive activities. He said, “If there is something we can ourselves, let’s do it. Although we were dealt a terrible hand by the tsunami, that does not mean there is nothing we can do.” And so, in August 2012 some of the residents held a summer festival for everyone in Temporary Housing A. Ryoichi played a key role in organizing the festival and told me that he cried when thinking about how much the residents had accomplished by themselves.

3.5

The Death of Companion Animals

After the tsunami, Ryoichi’s first year was tumultuous. The final phase of his life, retirement, was articulated by his devotion to organizing the residents of Temporary Housing A. He believes it was much tougher than being an employee of a big company. When I was working for the company, I had authority over other employees, and I could use that power to intimidate and influence them.

3

EVERYTHING I DID WAS FOR BARON

59

Other employees did not want to be on the wrong side of my personnel department. But here, that is not like that at all. [Laughs]

When asked about the difficulty of obtaining consensus among the residents prior to the establishment of the residents’ association, Ryoichi elaborated: It was a challenge. But after all, [as a leader] it’s no good to waver my opinion. Above all else, I must show I have a strong will. In the circumstances here, I had a lot of trouble gaining consensus, so I did not even assign even simple tasks to anybody, because I thought that I had to take full responsibility until we had established the residents’ association… Once I had promised everybody that I’d do my best, like the little steam locomotive that thought it could, I was determined to give to it everything I had.

The summer of 2011, when Ryoichi was putting all his energy in forming the residents’ association, Baron was losing his appetite. Baron, at age thirteen, was already quite old for a dog. Ryoichi explained that with the very hot summer in Sendai in that year, residents were beginning to suffer. Since the temporary housing complexes had tin roofs, the inside of the room became very hot due to its structure. Ryoichi continued, “At that time I had also started working as a leader for Temporary Housing A. So a lot of people were coming in and out of our unit, and that was unsettling for Baron.” Yayoi provided the final comment on Baron’s failing health: “Well, I guess he felt the full impact of having moved to a new environment with his whole tiny body. You know, human beings talks like we are now, and that can help relieve stress a little bit. [Baron] couldn’t do that.” Though Baron had been examined by a veterinarian and was found to have no particular abnormal condition, such as damage to internal organs, the veterinarian said that Baron might have been suffering from the stress of the rapidly changing environment and dealing with strangers. Although Ryoichi and Yayoi gave Baron his favorite treats, his appetite did not return, and Baron was frequently fed intravenously at the animal hospital. He continued to lose weight and grew much weaker. On the morning of September 19, 2011, Baron’s condition took a sudden turn for the worse. Baron whimpered just once before collapsing on the floor. He remained conscious, and Ryoichi and Yayoi rushed him to the veterinary hospital. When Baron was put in a cage, he smiled a sweet smile

60

H. KAJIWARA

and barked with a “ruff, ruff.” Looking back, Ryoichi believes that was Baron’s good-bye. At this point, Yayoi took over the narrative with tears: I told him, “Baron, hang in there, until I come back in the evening” and he opened his eyes wide. I said to the veterinarian, “Doctor, his eyes opened like this” [She made a circle with a finger as tears began to fall] The doctor said, “Well, in his condition, it is impossible to open his eyes wide. That wouldn’t happen so sudden.” But he certainly did open his eyes and look at us. So, that was the last good-bye… All I can say is that Baron gave us unconditional love. Only people who have had a pet can understand the emotions we felt… friends ask me, “Why don’t you get another dog?” But I think at our age we would find it overly challenging. We cannot so easily keep a dog anymore. I guess we could give the dog to one of our sons later if they agreed to take it in. But it is simply impossible. And, because we had this deep emotional bond with Baron, he cannot be replaced… [Laughs and cries].

Ryoichi concluded the interview: “Because I believe that Baron saved us from the tsunami, he cannot be replaced by another dog. I don’t think there is a dog who I can love like our Baron. We were and still are strongly attached to him.” Ryoichi and Yayoi lost all of their pictures of Baron when the tsunami destroyed their home. All they maintain is a few images in Ryoichi’s mobile phone. However, there was a calendar featuring photos of Shih Tzus hanging on the wall of their living room in the temporary housing. They told me that they have kept it because the picture looks a lot like Baron when he was a puppy.

3.6

The Pet-Owner Relationship

Mattes (2016: 106) states that Japanese pets are “sometimes serving as an alternative to children or a remedy for an ‘empty nest’.” After raising their three sons, Ryoichi and Yayoi moved to Sendai, and Baron and did indeed fill the “empty nest.” In their retirement, Baron created various opportunities for Ryoichi and Yayoi to interact with each other. Baron was the center of their conversations; their daily routines revolved around feeding and walking Baron; he was there when they worked in the garden; he was mentioned in every friendly exchange with their neighbors. Baron articulated the rhythm of their life.

3

EVERYTHING I DID WAS FOR BARON

61

Baron was more than a companion animal; he was the “Kasugai” that bound Ryoichi and Yayoi together. Ryoichi seemed hesitant to talk about the process whereby Baron came into his life as a consumer good, a mere dog that he had bought from a friend. The discomfort seemed to arise from the realization that in purchasing the dog he had actually acquired something that was priceless. Talking about Baron as a transaction seemed to desecrate the very being of so important a family member. Once off that topic Ryoichi’s voice returned to normal. After the 3.11 tsunami, Ryoichi and Yayoi came to the realization that Baron was the one who had saved their lives. The Suzukis made choices that gave a high priority to Baron’s quality of life, such as choosing a shelter or temporary housing that would accommodate him and using a friend’s villa at a respite. Baron was the reason for Ryoichi invested in reconstructing the community. For Ryoichi, Baron was a reassuring animal who saved his life and encouraged the rebuilding of the community. On the other hand, he and Yayoi realized Baron’s vulnerability. They became aware that animals are creatures that feel stress even though they cannot communicate in words. Baron died in September 2011, six months after the tsunami. He is the one and only dog for Ryoichi and Yayoi. The relationship in itself was meaningful and important for Ryoichi and Yayoi, which ultimately raises questions about Baron’s rights, not only as “property” of his owners but as a living creature with a real relationship with his guardians.

Note 1. I use the first person not “the author” in Part II and Part III. In the life story methodology, stories of people’s lived experiences are thought to emerge through interaction with interviewers. I conducted the in-depth interviews as one of the parties involved in weaving the stories of their lived experience, rather than simply asking and recording questions. Therefore, the first person is used here based on reality and for the readers’ readability.

References Literature in English Charles, N., & Davies, C. A. (2008). My family and other animals: Pets as Kin. Sociological Research Online, 13(5). Retrieved August 26, 2019, from http:// www.socresonline.org.uk/13/5/4.html.

62

H. KAJIWARA

Cudworth, E. (2018). Now, where were we?’: The highs and lows of hunting data with a research pack. Journal of Sociology, 54(4), 488–503. Mattes, S. (2016). The shared vulnerability and resiliency of the Fukushima animals and their rescuers. In M. S. Chaiken & M. Companion (Eds.), Responses to disasters and climate change: Understanding vulnerability and fostering resilience (pp. 103–112). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Literature in Japanese A-CUBE. (n.d.). Organization pages of A-CUBE. Retrieved January 17, 2020, from http://www.a-cube-sendai.com/. Iwakura, Y. (2014). Higashinihon daishinsai ni okeru borantia no hisai d¯obutsu ky¯ ugo katsud¯ o: H¯ato to h¯ato kara no teian [Volunteer’s rescue activities for animals in the Great East Japan Earthquake: Proposal from “Heart to Heart”]. Chikusan no Kenkyu [Sustainable Livestock Production and Human Welfare], 68(1), 33–38. Kameda, Y. (2014). Higashinihon daishinsai ni okeru Sendai-shi no hisai d¯ obutsu ky¯ ugo taisaku no torikumi [Efforts to rescue animals affected by Sendai in the Great East Japan Earthquake]. Chikusan no Kenkyu [Sustainable Livestock Production and Human Welfare], 68(1), 15–18. Miyagi Prefecture Health and Welfare Department Earthquake Disaster Relief Room [Miyagi ken hoken fukushi-bu shinsai engo-shitsu]. 2013. Okyu kasetsu jutaku (purehabu jutaku) kyoyo oyobi nyukyo jokyo (Heisei 25-nen 8 tsuki 31nichi genzai) [Provision of temporary housing (prefabricated housing) and status of occupancy (as of August 31, 2013)] [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 26, 2019, from https://www.pref.miyagi.jp/uploaded/attachment/375709.pdf. Sendai City [Sendai shi]. (2014). Sendai shiseida yori Aoba-ku-ban 2014-nen 9 tsuki-go [Sendai City Government News Aoba Ward Edition September 2014] Retrieved August 26, 2019, from https://static.miyagi-ebooks.jp/actibook_ data/201409251500_sendaisisei1409_aoba/_SWF_Window.html.

CHAPTER 4

Surviving with Companion Animals

By the end of the first week following the Great East Japan Earthquake, the number of resident refugees had reached 386,739 nationwide (Reconstruction Agency [Fukko-cho] 2011). If the victims who did not go to public shelters are included, the number would be considerably higher. The earthquake was an individual experience, and it goes without saying that the experiences of the people affected were diverse. Nevertheless, those who lived with companion animals had particular difficulties at the scene of the disaster, as was also true for older people, people with disabilities, patients with chronic and acute illnesses, and parents of young children. This chapter describes the action of 19 guardians in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures affected by the tsunami. In addition to these 19 guardians, three animal rescue activists and six other individuals involved were also interviewed. These included representatives of an animal welfare organization, a pet beauty parlor owner and a city bureaucrat. From the qualitative data compiled, the way in which the guardians survived is described in some detail. How those who lost a companion animal in the ordeal coped with grief is an important part of the story. Section 4.1 outlines the evacuation behavior of the guardians. Four general approaches were distinguishable: confronting the system, returning to a destroyed residence, making alternative arrangements, and

© The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_4

63

64

H. KAJIWARA

suffering in silence. The guardians who were refused emergency accommodation with their pets had to struggle to maintain their relationship with their companion animals. Most of them experienced a hiatus of three to four months before they were able to locate suitable accommodation in a temporary housing complex. During that time, they were proactive in seeking solutions to their dilemma. Section 4.2 considers the qualities that defined the relationships between owners and their companion animals. Based on their evacuation behavior, the outlook taken by many interviewees might be described as a “companion animal first” stance, an orientation that gave priority to companion animals above all else. Of the 28 interviewees in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures, the qualitative data of 19 owners was analyzed in detail. The interview data of nine interested parties supplemented and reinforced the analysis. In addition to the basic characteristics such as gender, age or occupation, the following information was considered in the analysis: the number of human families before the earthquake, the number of current human families, the area where they lived before the earthquake, temporary housing where they are living, the number of companion animals before the disaster, dog or/and cat breeds, the place in which the animal was living pre-disaster (such as indoors or outdoors), the number of dead animals, the number of adopted animals after the earthquake, the current the place in which the was animal living, interview contents, how the animals survived the disaster, and so on.

4.1

Four Aspects of Guardian Behavior 4.1.1

Confronting the System

In daily life, there is no need for guardians to justify or prove to others the value and meaning of their companion animals in their lives. Indeed, the owners are not particularly aware of it. However, after March 11, the guardians suddenly found themselves in a harsh world where companion animals that were individually and uniquely important to their lives, were being denied support and dismissed as “just a dog” or “just a cat.” Most of the owners interviewed described an experience in which their companion animals were refused at the first stage shelter or at secondary shelters where the evacuees were being concentrated in the next stage, despite the fact that they took their pets as a member of the family.

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

65

Mrs. DM (age 35) went to the designated shelter with her Maltese, “Pansy,” on the night of March 11, 2011, but was turned away at the entrance. She was told, “People with a dog cannot enter.” At that time, Mrs. DM told me during our interview, she was shocked, because she realized that Pansy was “just a dog” to other people. Some guardians, like Ryoichi Suzuki, mentioned above, confronted this exclusionary system head-on. In many cases, the difficult situations faced by guardians, including their unreasonable treatment in the shelters, the lack of consideration by local governments when moving into temporary housing, and the conflict with non-owners in temporary housing, encouraged problem solving, along with continued silent resistance. 4.1.1.1 Living in My Vehicle with My Dog Miss GM (age 36) continued living in her small car with her dogs for two and a half months before moving to temporary housing. Before the tsunami, she had created a private dog park in the garden of her home overlooking the coastal sea, where she lived with five small dogs. On March 11, she happened to be unwell, resting from work and staying at home. Fortunately, she was able to escape from the tsunami with her five dogs and her parents. They rode in two cars. Although cell phones were very difficult to connect in the area, she was able to contact her younger brother by chance on hers. Her family joined the others at the agricultural cooperative, a designated shelter in the area. At that time, the site was a shelter for many dogs and their guardians. However, on the second day, an instruction was given to the dog owners: “Do not keep your dog in the shelter.” It is unclear who issued the instruction, and neither Miss GM nor her mother can remember who was told. Miss GM believed from the beginning that she would not be able to stay at the shelter because she had too many dogs. The number of neighborhood dogs and guardians who met on the first day at the shelter now declined rapidly. The owners left their animals with an acquaintance or relatives, or left the shelter with their pets. Eventually, all the dogs in the shelter except for Miss GM’s five disappeared. Her relatives all lived in the tsunami-affected areas and their houses were washed away in the same way as her own. There was no relative she could rely on. At that point, Miss GM’s life in her car began. She spent the cold nights in her car hugging her dogs under a blanket or in a sleeping bag. At the evacuation center, there were assigned duties such as tidying up, so her mother

66

H. KAJIWARA

slept in the building. Her mother took meals for four people each day and delivered them to the parking lot. Miss GM was initially able to take time off from the food company where she worked, but when work restarted, she asked her father to look after the dogs in the daytime and went to work. Miss GM and her family looked for private rental housing, but could not find a place that would allow them to live with their dogs. Although there were originally a few people who were living with their dogs in their cars, Miss GM’s family eventually became the only ones with animals left in the parking lot. Miss GM was very anxious that there would be no place for her to go if she could not stay there. She parked at the farthest spot from the agricultural cooperative building and lived as inconspicuously as she could. She took steps to ensure that people could not hear the barking of the dogs and that her presence would not be annoying to the non-pet owners. However, the most difficult thing for her was to hear the words spoken by people in the shelter: “You have too many dogs, even when humans are having such a hard time.” “Dispose, dispose!” “You don’t need five dogs.” Miss GM’s mother also noted that many in the shelter accused her of “brazenly shopping for pet food for dogs in such a difficult time.” The family’s evacuation life with five dogs seemed incomprehensible to most. It can be speculated that those around her were recommending euthanizing the dogs or giving them up to make life easier for her. However, such words nearly drove Miss GM to a nervous breakdown. G: When I lay down in the car, I really thought many times, “It would have been much easier to die by being swept away by the tsunami.”

Some volunteer groups and animal rescue groups offered to take care of Miss GM’s dogs, but most encouraged her to abandon ownership and it made her angry. Some people left flyers on her car noting various animal welfare groups. The flyers generally said that the groups would keep the dogs of refugees temporarily until the owners were able to rebuild their lives. However, there was neither a system to insure the activities of the groups nor much information available on the groups. When some unknown someone suddenly told Miss GM that they would take care of her companion animals, she could not help but be confused. The possible temporary custody facilities for dogs were far from Tohoku in places like Kyushu, a southern island of Japan. Were she to have one of these groups

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

67

look after her dogs, she had no assurance that they would be returned. She could not think of anything but that. Apart from Miss GM’s thoughts, the quality of life for the dogs declined as life in the car was prolonged. She could not wash the dogs, so they were frustrated with itching and often fought with one another. Although it was a very difficult decision, Miss GM finally decided to give two of the dogs to her brother’s friend, who had two children and would love the dogs. One day in May, she took the two dogs to her brother’s friend’s house. The dogs quickly got used to the house and immediately began to play with the children. However, when they discovered that they would be left behind, they ran to the living room window and, according to Miss GM’s account, continued to watch Miss GM’s car as she drove away. This act was not a disposal to make her life easier—as the people around her had recommended—but rather it was a resolute decision made in consideration of the dogs’ quality of life. Miss GM then started to search for a pet-friendly rental property for the entire family, including the three remaining dogs. Sadly, her search was unsuccessful. She did not feel comfortable moving with four family members and three dogs to a container-type temporary house, but gradually began to feel as though there was no other way. Although she hoped to enter a temporary housing facility in the district close to her company, where many people from the original area were relocating, the person in charge at a briefing session for temporary housing recruitment told potential applicants that people with pets would be allowed to live only in one particular housing section—Temporary Housing A. Therefore, Miss GM applied to the same temporary housing as Ryoichi. Although companion animals would, in fact, be allowed to live with their guardians in all of the temporary housing in Sendai City, many individuals, like Miss GM, upon hearing in the earliest briefing that there would be only one pet-friendly area, chose to live in Temporary Housing A. It was later concluded that the person in charge of the briefing was confused about this matter. Alternatively, the Sendai City government may have intended to bring pet owners together in one place to make the problem easier to handle. At the beginning of June 2011, Miss GM moved to her temporary housing and was finally able to sleep on a flat surface with her dogs. However, life in the car over two and a half months had damaged her father’s health. A few days after moving into the temporary housing, Miss GM’s father lost the feeling in his feet and was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The diagnosis was “economy class syndrome.”

68

H. KAJIWARA

4.1.1.2 Drifting from Refuge to Refuge with a Cat The guardians who evacuated with their companion animals were not just those who owned cars and could use them as private spaces, such as Ryoichi and Miss GM. Ms. KM (age 39) was rescued with her cat and child eight hours after the sea had suddenly invaded her home. Ms. KM lived on the first floor of a rental apartment near Sendai Port with two elementary school sons and a cat, Lulu (a mixed-breed cat). As she had been suffering from depression for more than ten years, she was receiving public welfare assistance and raising her children as a single mother. When the earthquake occurred on March 11, her second son came home from elementary school. Ms. KM was gathering up the children’s clothes and food for the cats in preparation for evacuation. Suddenly, a cascade of water came in through the window of the apartment. Ms. KM heard a terrible “whooshing” sound and reflexively scooped up her son and cat from the water and put them on an upper step of a closet that had not yet been flooded. She continued to call for rescue with her cell phone, as the water around her rose steadily. Although the signal was very weak, connection was sometimes possible. At 11 pm, she, her younger son, and Lulu (her cat) were rescued by the fire brigade and several neighbors. Although she nearly lost consciousness many times as she awaited rescue, she had been kept awake by the faint cry of Lulu’s voice. Ms. KM insisted that Lulu saved her life. K: Lulu continued to call for me with her little voice—“meeeow! meeeow!”—in order to keep me awake. As a result, I never fell asleep and could survive.

A member of the fire brigade carried Ms. KM’s small son on his shoulders as they were being rescued from the room. Ms. KM was too tired to stand, but she could not separate from Lulu. She put the cat in a cage and brought Lulu to the shelter, clinging tightly to the handle of the cage. It was nearly midnight when Ms. KM arrived, with her younger son and Lulu, at the nearby elementary school, which was now serving as a refuge. They were dripping wet. This was the elementary school that Ms. KM’s children attended. Ms. KM’s older son was sleeping in a warm classroom with a stove, along with the other children who had not left school earlier. There was no heat in the other rooms, but every classroom was full of refugees. No pets were allowed in the classrooms.

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

69

K: There was really no place for pets in this shelter. So, the owners of the pets who evacuated first were all outside. The owners were told to keep all the dogs outside and not bring their dogs into the shelter, even though the water was approaching. Some owners held their dogs in leash on to fences or trees outside. As the water approached several times, the leashed dogs were swimming hard.

The school was near Ms. KM’s apartment, which had been completely destroyed by the tsunami. The water from the tsunami had not yet receded when she arrived the elementary school. According to Ms. KM, some dogs had drowned while leashed. After her second son settled down and slept in the classroom, Ms. KM went out into the hallway and laid down on cardboard. She slept there with her cat that night. When talking about her experience at the shelter, Ms. KM stressed her vexation more than anything else. When she took her cat out of the cage in the hallway, an elderly woman asked, “Can I touch the cat?” The older woman told Ms. KM her tragic story. She had been rescued by helicopter from a seaside area that was heavily damaged by the tsunami. At that time, she was ordered by the helicopter crew to drop the small dog that she was holding in her arms. She was told directly, “If you don’t want to let go of the dog, you will have to get down.” In response, she released her hold on the dog. Ms. KM knew the older woman was crying alone every night. The small dog was her only family, as she had lost her husband years before. Although Ms. KM heard many similar stories from others at the shelter, another elderly woman that I spoke to in Temporary Housing A told me a much different story. When she was rescued by a Self-Defense Forces helicopter, she was about to give up trying to bring her large Akita Inu [an Akita dog breed] on board. However, one of the team members insisted, “Please get your dog on the plane. I feel sorry for the dog.” The entire crew came together and lifted the dog onto the helicopter. It is not difficult to imagine that on-site responses during this time of high stress varied significantly (Photo 4.1). Ms. KM said that she understood the resentment of others who did not comprehend the importance of the animals who lived with their owners: K: Humans have priority. This disaster certainly was one that could not have been imagined, and I kind of understand that to some degree. But for us [the guardians], these children [pets] were there, so we were able to stay alive. Such a thing could not be understood by all.

70

H. KAJIWARA

Photo 4.1 Owner rescued by a Self-Defense Force helicopter along with her Akita Inu and cat (Worried about her cat getting lost, she watches over throughout the day the cat in temporary housing A) (Source Author’s fieldwork on September 4, 2013)

The elementary school where Ms. KM was staying was a large shelter, with thousands of evacuees. All the classrooms were full of people. The people had to lie one above the other when they slept at night. Some guardians were told emphatically by non-pet owners, “Don’t bring your pet!” As a consequence, most owners went home or started to live in their cars after the tsunami waters receded. However, Ms. KM’s rented apartment was completely destroyed by the tsunami. Ms. KM, who did not have a car, had to stay at the school. Her location, along with that of her cat and two children, changed repeatedly in the shelter. After a month, she was ordered to move to the gymnasium of the elementary school. Ms. KM often protested face-to-face to city officials and the teachers managing the elementary schools: “Are you telling us to die? People who don’t have a house or anything else? … You are fine because you have your home, but

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

71

we don’t. You order those of us who have no home to get out. Or to not bring our animals. Do you have to talk like that? This cat is my family!” In fact, the person who gave Lulu to Ms. KM was himself a victim of the tsunami. He was found dead in Ishinomaki City, 50 kilometers from Sendai. Ms. KM had always been deeply attached to the man, who was like an older brother to her. This, as much as any other consideration, motivated Ms. KM’s passionate desire to protect and take care of the cat. However, Lulu did not eat cat food or drink much water while changing her address frequently during the stressful month after the earthquake. Although Lulu was always a quiet cat, by the time she moved to the gymnasium, she was thin and so weak that she could not meow. Just when Ms. KM began to think that the cat would die if her situation continued on like this, a supporter of one of the animal welfare groups came for the first time to the shelter. The supporter not only helped with cat food and toilet items, but also looked for a veterinarian who would examine Lulu. Soon after Ms. KM had been finally connected to animal support, she and other evacuees were moved to the local Civic Center, as the evacuation center at the school returned to its role as an elementary school. At the Civic Center, Ms. KM was again told that “pets are prohibited.” She had to fight for a week before finally receiving permission from the city government office to bring her cat to the new shelter accommodation. The City Hall granted her permission on the condition that she keeps her cat in a cage. However, there were still problems. One of the people in the shelter repeatedly called the city’s animal control center, complaining, “There is a cat in the evacuation center, so take the cat!” Each time, Ms. KM had to make her case that she and her cat were the same victims. She was in the Civic Center for two months, during which time she was forced to change rooms again and again. Of course, the responses of the other evacuees there were not all negative. There were many people who came to pet the cat every day, many of whom remarked on how cute Lulu was. Temporary Housing A, which was constructed first, was pet-friendly but far from where Ms. KM lived. Her children cried at the thought of having to transfer schools. Ms. KM looked for private rental housing closer to home. However, it was difficult to find a suitable room. Meanwhile, new temporary housing was being built in the area where she had lived before the tsunami, and she went to see it with the children. The site of the new housing was where the tsunami had come

72

H. KAJIWARA

on the day of the earthquake. The younger son, who had experienced the terror of the tsunami, panicked as soon as he saw the location: “The tsunami is coming!” he reportedly exclaimed. (Each of the sons has a mild developmental disorder.) Ms. KM turned down that temporary housing and again began searching for private rental housing. Once more, however, it was extremely difficult to find an acceptable room for herself, two elementary school boys and a cat. Some of those whom she had met at the Civic Center had now moved into Temporary Housing A and strongly encouraged her to join them there. After much agonizing, she decided that the children would have to change schools. At this point, it was the only option open to her if she wished to have Lulu continue to stay with her. Finally, at the beginning of June 2011, Ms. KM put behind that part of her life where she and her family were repeatedly forced to move from room to room. She moved to Temporary Housing A with her children and Lulu. Confronting the system, as was the case with Ryoichi, Miss GM, and Ms. KM, was conspicuous because all three raised a strong voice on behalf of their companion animals. They appeared before shelter personnel and attempted to negotiate with those in authority. Administrative officers had frequent direct contact with them. It cannot be said that people who confront the system were (or are) in the majority. However, those that did acted as entrepreneurs to drive the executive branch. Such people have played an important role in elevating public awareness of the importance of the relationship between companion animals and their guardians, particularly in the confusion and disorder that surrounds a major disaster. The tsunami completely flooded or destroyed the homes of each of the people described here, and none had reliable relatives nearby. They came to the refuge when all other avenues of retreat were cut off. They had the power to forcefully express their opinions, and each showed the strength of their will. Underlying the behavior exhibited by these owners was the unbending belief that the importance of companion animals should be recognized. They also felt a sense of crisis, not knowing what would happen to their lives with their pets if they did not appeal to the city government. After moving into their temporary housing, Ryoichi and Ms. KM became pet club leaders in the community. They were also looking toward their future in public housing after their move there. People who confront the system should not be viewed as complainers. They have the potential to play a significant role in the resilience process.

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

73

During their long evacuation, many of those who confronted the system also looked for alternative ways to deal with the situation. Ryoichi drove his wife and Baron to a friend’s villa for two weeks rest and immediately returned to the evacuation gymnasium himself. Although Miss GM initially refused to give up her five dogs, she later handed two of them over to a nearby acquaintance out of concern for the quality of life of the animals. Such alternative arrangements were pursued by many, as described next. 4.1.2

Making Alternative Arrangements

Some owners took action to overcome the confusion using their social capital, relying on relatives or friends. They sought alternatives to life amid the confusion of the shelters with their companion animals. Mr. HI (age 54), who had lost his wife in the tsunami, lived in his sister’s house with his Shiba Inu (Shiba Dog) and his daughter before moving into temporary housing. There were others. Mrs. GI (age 70) evacuated to her daughter’s house with her husband and dog. Mrs. EI (age 80), who lost her home and son in the tsunami, wishing to avoid life in the shelter, evacuated to her mountain hut with her dog and her husband. According to their account, more than 10 relatives gathered there and spent months together without public emergency support. Some who lived temporarily in the home of a relative moved to a public refuge once the initial confusion subsided and the operation of the refugee centers became more organized, even to the extent that animal cages were made available. Many had gradually come to feel guilty and ashamed as their relatives continued to house them while making no financial demands. Others decided to enter the shelters out of a conviction that information from the government was more readily available there. 4.1.2.1 “I Promise to Pick You up” Before the earthquake, Mrs. SM (age 64) lived in Arahama, a beachside area in Sendai City, with her husband, a son and their medium-sized black female dog, Jody. Her husband was a block craftsman and had carefully maintained their 40-year-old house. The main house had six bedrooms and a large kitchen. Next to it was a two-story lodge-style building. Jody lived on the first floor of the lodge; the son lived on the second floor. Mr. SM usually stayed alone at home during the daytime. On March 11, 2011, her husband happened to come home early from work. After

74

H. KAJIWARA

finishing lunch, they were both resting in their Kotatsu [a Japanese foot warmer attached to the underside of a table], and commented, “It’s still early for Jody’s walk.” The ground had begun to shake. Although this was an unprecedented earthquake, the two shared a preconception that a big tsunami would never strike their area. Indeed, Mr. SM’s parents used to tell them a story that had been handed down orally from past generations about the impossibility that a tsunami would ever come. However, when the violent shaking ceased, Jody howled loudly, jumped up, and ran about wildly. With that, Mrs. SM and her husband considered evacuating their home and walked outside. There was already a power outage; a member of the fire brigade was running down the street, shouting, “Please escape. The tsunami is coming!” When her husband opened the door of their mini truck, Jody immediately jumped on board. She seemed to be appealing for something and had a look of desperation. Mr. SM, who understood the urgency, rushed Mrs. SM along. “Hurry up, go, go!” Mrs. SM suddenly noticed something strange as she put their generator on the mini truck and ran to check the vegetable greenhouse. A gray curtain had suddenly appeared on the blue horizon. Realizing immediately that the gray curtain was, in fact, a massive tsunami, Mrs. SM yelled to her husband, “That’s the tsunami! We need to run!” With that, they drove frantically away, chased by the roar of the tsunami. All along the farm road, there were countless ridges 30 cm high due to the earthquake. They were so terrified that they could not look back. Mrs. SM, her husband, and Jody spent two nights in their car at the Wakabayashi ward office parking lot in Sendai City. Everywhere, there were cars filled with people who had evacuated their homes. Since the parking lot was not an official refuge, there were no relief supplies. A tofu shop owner in the neighborhood brought them tofu and natto [traditional Japanese foods made from soybeans]. In the parking lot of the ward office, Mrs. SM first thought about evacuating to the house she grew up in Namie Town in Fukushima. However, when her phone call was connected to her relative there, she discovered that they, too, were in their car, having evacuated their home in fear. In Fukushima, evacuation from the nuclear accident had already begun. The ward office staff told Mrs. SM and others to go to the shelter, since the administrative agency could provide no help in the parking lot where they

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

75

had parked their vehicle. As Mrs. SM was contemplating the difficulty of going to a shelter with their dog, her husband’s sister called in panic. The sister said that she had called them many times before finally being connected. Her house was approximately 30 minutes from Sendai by car, and although some of her furniture had fallen over due to the earthquake, there was no serious damage done to the house. Mr. and Mrs. SM, their son, grandchildren, and Jody drove to the sister’s home. She lived with two Shiba dogs and had built a large enclosure for them. On arrival, Jody immediately began playing energetically with the other dogs in the enclosure. Although there was little damage to the house, there was no power and no water. The residents had to make several round trips each day to get water by bringing a poly tank or bucket to the Self-Defense Forces water truck that came daily to a nearby elementary school. They soon felt they would be unable to stay on, believing that they were relying too much on the generosity of the sister. The men of the family, Mr. SM and their son, returned to Sendai City two days later, where they secured a place for the family in an elementary school that was now serving as a shelter. One week later, Mrs. SM, her son’s wife, and their grandchildren left the sister’s house and began life in the shelter. Mr. and Mrs. SM decided to let Jody remain at the sister’s house, at least for a while, believing that this would be the best environment for him. In April, after the shelter was moved from the elementary school to Wakabayashi Gymnasium, Mr. and Mrs. SM went to pick up Jody. Mrs. SM : I guess my husband missed Jody a little. He said, because the refuge is composed, we can go to pick up Jody. When we went to pick him up, Jody was extremely delighted. The sister said, “What a selfish and honest dog!”

While staying at the sister’s house, Jody appeared to become attached to her. However, when the guardians went to get Jody, he was extremely excited to see them. Although dogs still could not stay in the gymnasium, the confusion at the time of the first impact of the disaster had calmed considerably. Some animal support supplies had already been delivered by volunteers commissioned by Sendai City. Mrs. SM found a cage for Jody, but she found that it was impossible to put Jodie in the cage. Since Jody had been living on the ground floor of the lodge-style house, he was not used to being confined in a small space. There were big trees around the gymnasium. Mrs. SM leashed Jody to one of the trees with the leash she

76

H. KAJIWARA

had been given by a volunteer. Ten other dogs lived outside the shelter or in their owner’s car. Later, several tents were set up for the owners and pets to spend time together outside the gymnasium. Despite the availability of pet food, Jody suddenly stopped eating after he was leashed outside the gymnasium. Support was provided in the large shelter, where many of the evacuees had gathered. There were not only supplies; various events such as concerts and dances were constantly being arranged. Many of the people who attended would walk around the dogs, paying little attention. For Jody, who had lived on the beach, this was a sudden turn in his life. Mrs. SM took Jody to his regular veterinarian after he had eaten nothing at all for a few days. She had received 5000 yen (US$ 46) as support for the medical expenses of the affected animals and was able to use it for Jody’s visit. Jody received a drip infusion and an injection. To the great relief of Mrs. SM, Jody’s appetite returned the next day. In the gymnasium/evacuation center, there were many neighbors of Mrs. SM from the Arahama area. At the shelters, most people tended to build enclosures using cardboard boxes to provide privacy. However, Mr. SM and her neighbors all slept together on the floor without being any surrounding cardboard. When recruitment for temporary housing began, Mrs. SM formed a group of 10 families with her neighbors, conforming to the city’s requirement of “community tenanting.” (As mentioned in Chapter 3, this meant that 10 families had to move into the new housing as a set in order to avoid isolation.) In early June 2011, Mrs. SM moved to the “B” temporary residence with her neighbors. By her choice, she had not gone to the evacuation shelter during the earliest stage, and she dealt with the confusion of the times by leaving Jody temporarily with a relative (Photo 4.2). 4.1.2.2 Leaving My Dog to a Veterinarian’s Care Mrs. RM (age 85) is not an ancestral inhabitant of Sendai’s coastal area. She had begun to live there when she bought some residential land developed 20 years before. Her husband had died 15 years ago, and two years later, her second son suddenly died of heart disease. Her nephew, who is a veterinarian, suggested that having a dog might help her overcome her grief and loneliness. Taking his advice, she bought a male Shih-Tzu puppy from a local pet shop. She named the puppy John, who soon became like a son to her. Mrs. RM, who is not very sociable, had lived with her dog for 13 years; the dog meant everything to her.

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

77

Photo 4.2 Companion animals living in temporary housing after surviving the tsunami (Mrs. SM and her husband believe that their companion animal [Jody; the bottom left] saved them. So does Ms. KM [Lulu; the bottom right]) (Source Author’s fieldwork on September 4, 13 and 26, 2013; August 25, 2014)

On the day the earthquake occurred, Mrs. RM held onto John and evacuated in a neighbor’s car, carrying a rucksack filled with pet food. At the primary school where she took refuge, no one mentioned pet rules, at least not at first. She sat down in a chair holding John and they spent their first night together. It was cold without any blanket or coat; however, she took John out once or twice to let him pee. The arrangement of the rooms was decided on the next day. A room was provided for those who brought their dogs. All the people in the room were living with their dogs, and Mrs. RM was happy and relieved that she could stay in such an environment. Her veterinarian nephew brought pet food, so Mrs. RM had no need to worry about John’s diet. However, spending nights without a futon in the cold affected her aging body. Mrs. RM. caught a cold, developed a high fever, lost consciousness

78

H. KAJIWARA

and fell. She was hospitalized for 10 days. John was left at her nephew’s animal hospital. Following Mrs. RM’s discharge from the hospital, she found it impossible to live in the shelter in her delicate physical condition. She decided to go to her eldest son’s apartment in Tokyo and left John at the nephew’s animal hospital for a while. In May, after the Tohoku Shinkansen (an express railway line) service was restored, her son went to Sendai, picked up John and brought him back to Tokyo. Mrs. RM could never have left John in an animal shelter that she did not know. However, she was physically very weak when she came back from the hospital. Furthermore, it was her nephew’s animal hospital and her nephew was John’s regular doctor. Therefore, Mrs. RM told me, she left John for a while even though it was more than flesh and blood could bear. Finally, she was reunited with John in Tokyo. Her son’s room was pet-friendly, but she became mentally exhausted from life in the Tokyo apartment. When she heard that Temporary Housing B in Sendai was available, she returned with John at the end of July. After moving into Temporary Housing B, John’s legs became tangled on the way home from a walk and he fell. Mrs. RM hastily took John to the animal hospital, where he was diagnosed with a heart problem. R: Anyway, John was stressed all the time after the tsunami. Away from me, taking a train, and so. The veterinarian told me that John had heart disease because of stress. After that, he’s been taking medicine everyday. Now he is much better than at that time.

A common point among those who took action to find alternative ways to deal with their situation is that they had social capital, such as relatives, that could be relied upon. In terms of social network theory, they were using their “strong ties” as social capital in a manner conceived by Granovetter (1973). However, there were various ways to use that capital. Some stayed in the home of relatives from the time of the disaster until temporary housing was completed. Others, like Mrs. SM, upon assessing that the chaos had subsided, moved to a public shelter. In some cases, guardians such as Mrs. RM left their companion animals for a period of time for health reasons.

4

4.1.3

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

79

Returning to a Destroyed Residence

In some cases, residents whose homes were not swept away by the tsunami found that the earthquake had destroyed most or all of the structure of their home. After being evacuated, some pet owners returned to what was left of their houses despite being prohibited from doing so by the authorities. Although the area in which they lived had been declared dangerous owing to the high probability of aftershocks, they continued to stay with their pets in their dilapidated homes in defiance of the authorities. In doing so, they clearly placed themselves outside the framework that had been established by the government on behalf of all the displaced victims. 4.1.3.1 Walking Past the “Keep Out!” Sign “I have no relatives, I am all alone in the world, so I’m free.” With these words, Miss TM (age 63) began telling her life story. By her own account, she was a former club singer and worked in Tokyo when she was young, but after marriage and divorce she returned to her hometown of Sendai. At the time of the earthquake, she lived with her cat, “Ranmaru,” in a rental apartment in Sendai City. Her workplace was a large hot spring facility kitchen, about 20 minutes away from her home by bicycle. When the earthquake struck, Miss TM was still at home before going to work. In order to avoid the tsunami, she put Ranmaru in a cage and went up to the 4th floor of a nearby building. The four-story building is an office building with restaurants and grocery stores on the first floor. There were more than 200 neighbors gathered there. Some brought dogs, but there were no cats other than Ranmaru. The building had private power generation facilities, so there was electricity and heating. There, the guardians were able to stay with their pets, and most felt that they were better off staying there than going to another location. Miss TM spent four days there. She made nearly 200 meals in collaboration with others, two meals each day, using food found in the refrigerators of a restaurant kitchen or ingredients from the grocery store below. She returned home several times, walked across the shattered glasscovered floor in her shoes, and was able to pick up as much pet food as she needed.1 However, Ranmaru, now living in a cage, remained very quiet and ate almost nothing. On the fifth day, the president of the building determined that it was dangerous for the 200 people to continue living there, as the aftershocks were continuing. At that point, everyone dispersed, either returning home

80

H. KAJIWARA

or moving to the designated shelter. However, the building president, who was an acquaintance of Miss TM and understood her circumstance (particularly her attachment to Ranmaru), asked, “Do you have a place where you can go?” Miss TM responded that she did not. With that, the president invited her to stay at his home, which had not been damaged and had not experienced a power outage. Four other employees whose houses had been destroyed were also invited to stay. The president’s wife was very much a “cat person” and took good care of Ranmaru. Ranmaru began to eat well. Freed from his cage and able to run around on the first and second floors, Ranmaru quickly regained his energy. In the meantime, Miss TM returned to her heavily damaged room during the daytime and cleaned up the broken dishes and fallen furniture. One wall of the 30-year-old mortared frame house flat had folded inward. It swayed with every aftershock. A week after the first earthquake, Miss TM left the building owner’s house and returned to her room with Ranmaru. A red sheet of paper was posted on her door. For Miss K, the meaning was clear: “Unsafe, Keep out!” After a major disaster, at the request of the municipality, quick inspections of damaged buildings are conducted to avoid secondary disasters that could threaten human lives. The inspectors evaluate the risks of the building and post placards based on the results of their inspection. Red placards indicate an unsafe building, yellow indicates limited entry, and green means the building is safe. If the building is determined to be dangerous, entering the house is prohibited, and residents must evacuate to designated evacuation centers. Even though Miss TM understood the meaning of the red placard, she nevertheless went inside. However, that night, electricity was unavailable, and the room was completely dark. She went to a nearby shelter for the first time. However, she quickly discovered that no pets were allowed at the shelter. Furthermore, because the system of the shelter had already been established, those living there from the beginning showed a cold attitude toward Miss TM and her cat. Distressed, she immediately left the shelter. T : I was very disgusted. I thought, that’s enough! I didn’t care about whether I could use the electricity so I went home. Then, that night, the lights came on.

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

81

Miss TM did not return to the shelter until the temporary housing was completed. She lived as a refugee in her severely damaged home with Ranmaru. Even though she lived alone, when she walked around the town, she often received support from various sources. Once, she was given free curry and Chinese food at a chain dumpling shop. Following a large aftershock in April, Miss TM, knowing that her friend’s husband was sleeping in his car and that his diabetes had worsened, looked at the city from the top of a crossover, found a business hotel with electricity, and negotiated with the hotel manager to allow the sick husband of her friend to stay without charge. Soon thereafter, the owner of her flat told her that she needed to leave the room, as it was dangerous to stay there. However, there were very few vacancies nearby. Most local landlords had relatives in the coastal areas who were affected by the tsunami. Immediately after the earthquake, most vacant rooms in apartments were filled by relatives whose houses had been swept away. Even if there were vacant properties, pets were not allowed. Because she was not staying at an evacuation center, Miss TM had little access to information on the recruitment of residents for temporary housing. However, she happened upon the construction site of new temporary housing while walking in the neighborhood. She went immediately to the City Hall to inquire about it. Although she had earlier been told that refugees would not be allowed to move into temporary housing without having a group of 10 families, the city official in charge told her that that would not be an issue. At the beginning of June, with the completion of Temporary Housing B, Miss TM was able to move in with Ranmaru. In the meantime, the hot spring facility where she worked had closed, meaning that Miss TM was now unemployed. She still goes to the Public Employment Security Office, looks through job magazines, and makes phone calls regarding possible positions. At the age of 63, however, re-employment is difficult in Japan. There is less monetary support for people like her than for victims whose homes were destroyed or washed away by the tsunami. Since her pension will not start until she is 65 years old, she will have to wait two more years. T : It is the hardest time for me, but when I’m not feeling very well or having something or other bad time, Ranmaru is always beside me. All the time. He doesn’t leave me. ※ He is supporting you?

82

H. KAJIWARA

T : Yeah. I don’t know how my life would be if he weren’t here. I am encouraged by his presence. So, even in the event of a disaster, we must stay beside the animals. Sometimes, we talk to animals and it will heal us. They don’t answer, but are listening. Both cats and dogs.

4.1.3.2 Coming Back to a Deserted Apartment Every Day Every animal has its own personality, and there were various circumstances in which the guardians could not take their animals to the refuge. Mrs. OM (age 52) and Mr. OM (age 57) lived in an apartment owned by Mr. OM’s brother near the center of Sendai City before the earthquake. They lived there with their two cats, Mizuki and Momo. The six-story apartment house, despite being new, now leaned significantly to one side as a result of the March 11 earthquake. There were bits of broken glass on the floor in the rooms of Mr. and Mrs. OM. Most of the furniture had fallen over. Furthermore, the lights in the room did not work. For the first night, they hastily decided to go to the elementary school gymnasium, which was serving as the local shelter. Mrs. OM, who has a leg-related disability, was unable to carry anything heavy. The couple did not have a car, and it was difficult to physically carry the two cats. The aftershocks continued throughout the night. Although they were worried about their cats, the couple had to leave the cats in the partially collapsed apartment. They made a tent-like structure with a futon mattress so that the cats could hide when the aftershocks occurred. They put out water and dry cat food and left the house. Upon arriving at the evacuation center, they saw that companion animals were being allowed to stay with their guardians. Several people had brought their dogs. The owners and their dogs were occupying the classroom on the second floor of the elementary school rather than the gymnasium. However, the OM’s saw no one who had brought cats. Even if this was a pet-friendly refuge, Mrs. OM and Mr. OM found it impossible to consider bringing their nervous cats there. According to the couple, Mizuki and Momo are very shy kids who have diarrhea if they feel unsafe or anxious. Mr. OM, who worked as a security guard, could not take a day off, even after the disaster. His work, in fact, increased, as trucks brought large quantities of relief supplies to the City Hall. His work shift became tighter. Mr. OM went to work from the shelter every morning. As soon as breakfast was over, Mrs. OM returned to the half-destroyed apartment by taxi and spent time with the cats until nightfall. Every evening, when

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

83

it was time for Mrs. OM to leave the house, the cats watched her with eyes that seemed sad. Mrs. OM was always filled with anxiety, worrying about whether the cats would be okay if another earthquake struck, even as she ate and slept at the shelter. Mrs. OM : Anyway, I felt sorry for them to leave them behind. They are cats, but when compared to other people, I felt that I was saying to the children, “I will leave you behind at home and even though an earthquake could occur, you have to wait here.” Isn’t it the same feeling?

Because her apartment building had been severely damaged, the management company of the building temporarily secured a business hotel in front of Sendai Station for building residents who had nowhere to go—those who could not find rental housing or those who did not have relatives who would take them in. Mrs. and Mr. OM moved from the shelter to the hotel. However, no pets were allowed. The couple thought about bringing their cats in secret, but they were worried that the cats would become sick due to the stress. As a result, Mrs. OM continued to return to her house daily to spend the day with her cats. She lived inconstant fear that the apartment would collapse, until finally she was able to move to Temporary Housing A in early June. The act of returning to a destroyed residence, as Mrs. RM and Mrs. and Mr. OM had done, was characterized by two principal conditions: First of all, the residences were damaged, but had not been swept away by the tsunami. Second, the people had less social capital available to them. However, that was not all. Miss TM, who did not belong to an organization, had always had a free spirit. It was difficult for her to adjust to group life in the shelter. After staying at an acquaintance’s house for several days as an alternative, she had the ability and proactive ingenuity to walk around the city and find the support she needed. However, she took this action, not as an exercise of free choice, but only because pets were prohibited from entering the shelter and there were no available rental properties that allowed pets. Miss TM’s actions were, in fact, a silent protest against the fact that animals were not included in public support. If staying in their homes was banned by authorities because of the danger, and companion animals were not accepted at the shelter, then guardians like Miss TM, who do not have relatives that they could turn to, have little choice.

84

H. KAJIWARA

After weighing their cats’ personalities, physical condition and risk, Mrs. and Mr. OM decided to leave their cats behind, feeling guilty and anxious. Mrs. OM returned home every day and spent time with the cats. The behavior of such owners is affected by the actual vulnerability of the animals and the vulnerability of the animals as perceived by the owner. It was clear that each interviewee had given careful consideration to the needs of their companion animal. Here, the breed of the pet seemed to be important. For example, there was a difference in the way the owners dealt with strong, medium-sized mix breed dogs and small, purebred dogs that were vulnerable to the cold. Breed served partly as a parameter defining what was physically possible for the animal, but also partly influenced the owner’s perception of what his or her pet could tolerate. Guardians who had always kept their robust, medium-sized mixed-breed dog outside were happy to have their animal stay outside. On the other hand, cat owners who felt that their cats were nervous and weak believed that they could not take their pets to a shelter. The case of Mrs. and Mr. OM exemplifies how some owners were unable to evacuate with their animals even when the accommodations were pet-friendly. Furthermore, the circumstances of those who returned to their destroyed residences without making any obvious claims made it difficult for the government to detect. Thus, such pet owners tended to be excluded from public support. 4.1.4

Suffering in Silence

Some guardians had no opportunity to take their companion animals with them when the tsunami occurred. The behavior of these people is different from those mentioned above who sought to maintain their relationship with their companion animals. However, how guardians coped with the sudden loss of their pets is an important part of the story of companion animals and owners during a disaster. Mrs. FM (age 61) and Mrs. BI (age 56) were at work on the day of the earthquake. Their house was washed away by the tsunami, and the bodies of the dogs who lived with them were never found. Mrs. FM continued to search for her two large-breed dogs after the water had receded and she was able to go to the beach. However, she could not ask the SelfDefense Forces who were searching for human bodies, “Did you see my dog?” When someone important in one’s life is lost, if the body is not found, it is very difficult to accept death. This is true whether it is an animal or a human. Boss and Yeats define it as “ambiguous loss.” They state,

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

85

“The chronicity and complexities of ambiguous loss create symptoms that may be construed as medical disorders such as depression or persistent complex bereavement disorder” (Boss and Yeats 2014: 63). Ross and Baron assert that among pet loss grief, the grief of the guardian for a missing pet is one of the most intense forms of grief, noting the difficulty of coping with the grief if the owner clings to the hope that the pet will come home someday (Ross and Baron-Sorensen 1998: 43). The health of both Mrs. FM and Mrs. BI was seriously affected by the loss of their dogs. Mrs. FM had urticaria over her entire body. She spent sleepless nights with itching and suddenly gained 10 kilograms. Mrs. BI became depressed. Another guardian, Mrs. PM (age 56) did not think the tsunami would ever reach her house. When she evacuated, she left her big black dog and twenty-year-old cat behind, telling them, “I will come back soon, so be patient for one night.” When Mrs. PM returned home after the tsunami, everything had disappeared, as if it were ground zero. However, the body of her dog, a mixed-breed Akita, was laying on the one small part of the foundation of the house that had remained. The cat was swept away with the house and could not be found. Mrs. PM buried her dog on her land. After moving from the shelter into temporary housing, she became emotionally unstable. According to her, when she moved from the gymnasium to the home-like setting of the temporary housing, the absence of the dogs and cats suddenly became a reality. Although the three people mentioned here had all lost their pets and were grieving deeply, they did not speak to others about their loss. Mrs. PM explains the reason why she didn’t talk much about her animals’ deaths. PM : Isn’t it because many people have died? If I tell some others that my dog or cat was lost, they may think, “It is just a pet,” as compared to a human loss. I don’t want to seem that way.

When Mrs. FM was having a difficult time, she sometimes returned to the area where she had lived before the tsunami. She often cried alone there. Even if there were others—volunteers or experts—who would listen to her and want to help, she had no interest in talking to them about her loss. FM : How can I say it? If I talk, it will be painful,… too painful. And how can someone understand? … Nobody can understand our grief. So, I think everyone does not talk about the grief.

86

H. KAJIWARA

Doka defines “disenfranchised grief” as when “a person is experiencing grief but the grief is not socially recognized” (Doka 2002: 11). This disenfranchised grief includes grief for the death of pets, death by suicide and death by abortion. Deeken says that disenfranchised grief is suppressed in expression and is deeper and lasts longer than other forms of grief (Deeken 1991). In order for the death of a companion animal to become an enfranchised grief, the existence of the companion animal must be enfranchised. However, this did not occur at the disaster site, as described in this chapter.

4.2

Companion Animals First

Chapters 3 and this chapter describe the experiences of guardians and their companion animals in the tsunami disaster. Seeking to answer the main research question: “How did guardians and their companion animals survive during and after a disaster?” we have seen how guardians acted during the period of evacuation and living in temporary housing afterward. In other words, as the first step in applying critical realism to the research, the empirical domain (the world that people experience) of the people that this research focuses on were described in detail, with reference to the actual domain (actual events). The concept of “companion animal first” emerges from our of analysis of the characteristics of the relationship between the tsunami-affected owners and their companion animals. As revealed in Chapters 3 and this chapter, the interviewees in the tsunami-affected areas chose from limited options the alternative that seemed best for their companion animals, depending on their situation, type of animal, the presence or absence of social capital, etc. The guardians all appear to have one particular characteristic in common: They gave priority to their companion animals above all else, in many cases sacrificing their own quality of life for the good of their animals. Their strong ties with their companion animals—which exceed those of mere “animal lovers”—drove their choices. Indeed, in areas affected by the tsunami, animals were often described by their owners as having saved their lives. Notably, it can be said that the companion animals became even more important to their owners after the disaster. The guardians consistently acted with a focus on their animals, not only in their immediate decision making during the first few hours of the emergency, but in the secondary evacuation, in the selection of temporary

4

SURVIVING WITH COMPANION ANIMALS

87

housing, and in planning their future life. Especially in their temporary housing, their interactions with their pets and their interactions with other people that resulted from the presence of their pets were extremely important in the lives of the guardians. Labeling this phenomenon the “companion animal first” concept effectively summarizes the behavior of these owners and can provide a useful reference point for future disasters.

Note 1. In Japan, people normally remove their shoes when entering the house. Her actions underline that this was a time of emergency.

References Literature in English Boss, P., & Yeats, J. R. (2014). Ambiguous loss: A complicated type of grief when loved ones disappear. Bereavement Care, 33(2), 63–69. Doka, K. J. (2002). Disenfranchised grief: New directions, challenges, and strategies for practice. Champaign, IL: Research Press Pub. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Ross, C. B., & Baron-Sorensen, J. (1998). Pet loss and human emotion: Guiding clients through grief . New York: Routledge.

Literature in Japanese Deeken, A. (1991). Shibetsu to gurifu waku - hitan e no enjo - “konin sa rete inai hitan” [Bereavement and grief work—Support for grief—“Disenfranchised grief”]. Taminarukea [Terminal Care], 1(6), 391–394. Retrieved from http://www.saturn.dti.ne.jp/~chabin/grief-work.html. Reconstruction Agency [Fukko-cho]. (2011). Higashinihon daishinsai, Nakakoshi jishin oyobi Hanshin Awaji daishinsai no hinansho-su hinan-sha-su (hinansho seikatsu-sha) no suii ni tsuite [Changes in the number of refuge accommodation and the number of evacuees in the Great East Japan Earthquake, Chuetsu Earthquake and the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake] [Pdf file]. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/hikaku2. pdf.

PART III

The Nuclear Disaster in Fukushima

CHAPTER 5

I Have Lost the Meaning to Live

Hitomi Sato (age 56) lives in Fukushima. She was evacuated after the March 11 earthquake not because of the tsunami per se, but because of radiation from a nearby nuclear plant which was itself severely impacted by the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Her experience was different from that of the Ryoichi and Yayoi Suzuki not only because she had more animals (cats, dogs, and cows). More significantly the experiences if those evacuated from areas judged to be radioactively contaminated differed in several ways from the experiences of those along the coastline further north who had escaped “only” the tsunami. For example, the areas in Fukushima continued to be contaminated for a long time after the initial evacuation. Nine years after the accident, Hitomi is still prevented by the government from returning to the area where her home is located. Unlike the Ryoichis’ home, her home was not destroyed; it is simply uninhabitable owing to the radiation. Moreover, as the radiation is invisible, the temptation to return has been for many in Hitomi’s position much greater than would otherwise be the case; in other words, not being able to go home has for many their sense of loss has been become complicated by a different kind of psychological grieving. Hitomi was separated from not only her home and animals but also from family members previously close to her. For example, her relationship with her brother broke down over a disagreement concerning © The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_5

91

92

H. KAJIWARA

whether to accept the monetary compensation offered by the Tokyo Electric Power Company. Hitomi was also left agonizing over her many animals and her struggle to gain access to them. Hitomi’s story provides insight into the complexities facing those who had been evacuated from a nuclear power disaster.

5.1

Background

Hitomi’s family has lived more than 100 years in the family’s farmhouse in Tomioka Town, Futaba County, Fukushima Prefecture. She left home when she was 19 years old and finally came to own a bar in Sendai City, the biggest city in the Tohoku region with a population of about one million. In her early forties Hitomi returned to the family home in Fukushima to look after her grandmother. Hitomi was sometimes brought back to care for sick family members because she was a single female. After her grandmother died, Hitomi built her own house on the family owned property. She has already sold her own bar in Sendai. Hitomi enjoyed an independent life style in her newly built house. Before the nuclear accident in 2011 Hitomi’s mother lived in the main house with Hitomi’s younger brother, his wife, and their four children. The family looked after their cattle and various crops. When I first met Hitomi at the temporary housing in Iwaki City, Fukushima Prefecture, in August 2015, she came across as a very active and urbanized woman. She was wearing a sleeveless shirt, short pants, and jogging shoes. She put sunglasses on her head and briskly guided me around the temporary housing units. On that day, the residents in the temporary housing and volunteers who came from the church nearby had opened a cafe in one of the meeting rooms that had been made available in at the temporary housing complex. Hitomi introduced me to her mother and some other people with animals that were living in the temporary housing. Hitomi herself has already purchased a house and was living alone in a neighboring town. My interview with Hitomi was conducted at her newly purchased house. Hitomi described herself as having “a tidy and nervous character.” I had the opportunity to go to her home several times, and on one trip stayed in her home when I was unable to get a room in a nearby hotel. Every corner of her home thoroughly cleaned and neat. During the summer, approximately ten kinds of vegetable were being cultivated in the well-cared-for garden in front of the house. The front entrance to

5

I HAVE LOST THE MEANING TO LIVE

93

her home was adorned with a large size scarf featuring a beautiful horse. When I saw it for the first time, I commented on its striking beauty; she laughed, replying that she used to put this Hermes scarf around her neck or around her waist in the old days when she ran her bar, “Now I hanging it here for the memories.”

5.2

Plans for Her Own Farm House

Two years before the Great East Japan Earthquake, Hitomi replaced her grandmother’s old house with a large one-storied new house. She designed the house so that her uncles and aunts she grew up with could come to stay there anytime. The kitchen took in the brilliance of the morning sun. Hitomi planned to build a log house and a pizza oven outside sometime in the future. In the holidays, her uncles and aunts gathered at Hitomi’s home and talked about also growing vegetables, flowers, and rice together in their old age. Hitomi has paid close attention to the barrier free design of her house so that she could care for her uncles and aunts sometime in the future. The corridor down the center of the house was made extra wide so that even wheelchairs could pass each other. Hitomi has lived with various kinds of animals in the farmhouse since she was small. Hitomi was brought up with warmed goat milk, drinking it through a straw made from a stock of the wheat because her mother didn’t have enough of her own milk. The family always had several cows and brought up their calves with great care and affection. Though Hitomi had a strong attachment to the calves, they were also an important source of income for her family. Reflecting on her childhood, she recalled I cut grass from morning to night, fed the cows, and massaged their body. I talked to them hoping to fetch a high price. I sell the calves while crying. I told them ‘Oh, …You are worth 600,000 yen (approximately 5300 US dollars). I’m proud of you! I’m so proud of you!’ And then we sell them. But you know, we must sell them. There’s nothing I can do about that fact. Anyway, there’s no way we can keep very many at the same time. We keep only the females. Can’t keep the males. Every year, every year, the cows give birth to the calves. Sometimes, we had twins on our hands. In some cases, they died at birth. And some cows do not give mother’s milk to the baby, so I need to give them their milk with a nursing bottle. Our family has always worked with the cows in that way.

94

H. KAJIWARA

In addition, there were poultry and rabbits. At some time in the past, her father found a young raccoon in the mountains and has kept it as a pet. There was a parrot which one of her uncles had bought back from South America when he was working as a sailor. A big snake lived in the old house which had been built in 1907. Hitomi sometimes found the snake’s castoff skin. She was taught by the adults around her that the snake should be respected because it guarded the house. The dogs and cats are practically members of the family. Even the cats and dogs we do not know are welcome. From my childhood if I met a poor animal on my way home from school, I would bring it home and look after it. Once before, a Pointer dog ran after me and chased me home. When I told my dad, he asked where the dog came from. I told him I didn’t know. So, I was able to feed the dog and he stayed with us for several days. We would think such things normal, nothing special.

On March 11, 2011, seven people in total lived in the main house: Hitomi’s mother and Hitomi’s younger brother, his wife, and four children. There were three cows and two calves in a cow shed. Two of the cows were near the birth. Also there were a family’s watchdog Lucky (a Shiba dog) and an indoor black cat, Kurosuke whose presence Hitomi enjoyed. An outdoor tabby cat, Toranosuke, rounded out the colony of animals with a watchdog Lucky and the cattle. It was a big family of eight human beings, five cows, one dog, and two cats. Hitomi’s relationships with all the animals were rich and colorful.

5.3

Drinking Well Water Without Understanding the Situation

Hitomi’s house received little damage from the earthquake of March 11. Some plates fell off the shelf and some of the furniture has moved about. At the time her younger brother was working for a subcontractor with Fukushima’s Number 1 Nuclear Power Plant and was evacuated immediately. Early then next morning day he announced to us that he was leaving with his family because that is where his priories lie. That left me and our mother and the animals.

5

I HAVE LOST THE MEANING TO LIVE

95

Although those who lived in Tomioka’s central downtown gathered together in a gymnasium at the school, Hitomi’s house was some distance from the town and did not receive the information about where to evacuate. Accordingly, Hitomi watched the fire engines, ambulances, cars coming and going without much thought to where people were going. TV reception had been cut and the batteries in her radio were dead. Without a cell phone, she decided to stay indoors to save gasoline and directed her attention to cleaning up her house. Using well water and propane, Hitomi and her mother were comfortable and were able to carry on despite electric outage. We still had our home phone. My aunt and uncle who lived in Saitama prefecture called me, telling us to immediately get out of the area. Drop whatever you are doing and get out as fast as you can. They did not explain the situation and I could not understand what the fuss was all about. My mother was working outside and heard an explosion. Although she saw smoke coming out from Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant, it was some 7 kilometers away. Although I later tried to persuade her to evacuate, mum refused to leave, saying she could not leave the cows behind.

Because her uncle and aunt warned her on the phone the radiation released from the power plant would have contaminated the family’s well, Hitomi unthinkingly went to draw water from a river running through Kawauchi Village, a town adjacent to Tomioka. By chance she met a former classmate who chided her for her stupidity and yelled at her to escape right immediately. Hitomi was beginning to grasp the situation’s seriousness, but still took the water from the river back for the animals. Although she tried to impress on her mother the need to leave, she refused. Hitomi concluded her that part of her story by saying the mother was hardheaded and stubbornly set in her ways. Hitomi decided to take her cat and a neighbor in her sixties who was living alone to the nearby Kawauchi Village. Having loaded the cat food and cat litter for Kurosuke, the black indoor cat, she found that Kurosuke had opened the screen door and escaped. No matter how much she called Kurosuke also her tabby cat, Toranosuke, the cats were nowhere to be found. Hitomi finally gave up and left for Kawauchi without either cat. Hitomi still thinks she should have searched longer for Kurosuke, but felt a bit relieved that her mother had decided so firmly to stay behind as she could feed the cats once they turned up. She also intended to come

96

H. KAJIWARA

back to the house immediately in a few days. Kawauchi is a next village of Tomioka, 25 km away. The place is a familiar village for her; Hitomi was still not suspicious that she could return soon. When she arrived in Kawauchi, she found that both the community center and the gymnasium overflowing with people who evacuated from Tomioka. The population of Kawauchi had suddenly tripled from approximately 3000 to more than 9000 with 6000 refugees from Tomioka (Kawauchi Village 2014: 4). Then Hitomi had to move Fukushima to Saitama Prefecture regardless of her intention every few days along with many other residents. The Japanese government ordered refugees from the affected areas to stay indoors for several days in the Kawauchi facility because the radiation readings had reached dangerous levels. On March 16, 2011, the Tomioka local government evacuated all residents by bus to a convention center, the Big Palette Fukushima, some 50 km away in Koriyama City. 5000 residents of Tomioka Town and Kawauchi Village moved with Hitomi (Tomioka Town 2015a: 33). Seven buses rushed back and forth carrying residents between the Kawauchi Village and Koriyama City. The next morning, on March 17, the Big Palette Fukushima was full of people. Tomioka Town government recruited residents to go to Sugito Town in Saitama Prefecture which is a partner of the Friendship City Treaty, to reduce the pressure on the number of people. Hitomi got on the bus thinking of going to Saitama’s aunt’s house rather than being in the crowded facility. 200 residents attended on the caravan to 200 km away to Sugito (ibid.: 36). During this time, Hitomi’s mother was looking after the animals without leaving the farm house. However, Hitomi was out of contact with her mother and little brother, and was just flowing away by fate. When people left their home, they thought that they would be relocated for only a short while. Hitomi related the events as follows: We literally left our house with the clothes that we had on, so we couldn’t even change our clothes. The worst case I saw was another middle-aged woman who was wearing only loungewear and sandals. She had only a wallet in her hand. And this was at a time when temperatures were 0 degrees celsius at night. Because everyone thought we would be coming back home immediately, we simply got up and left without about any of the important things we were leaving behind. No one thought of things such as their personal seal or their bankbook, something to eat or even a toothbrush. Well, it was just miserable.

5

I HAVE LOST THE MEANING TO LIVE

97

The refugees who came to Sugito Town in Saitama Prefecture were divided among the Town’s four welfare institutions. There was no bedding such as futons so they had to lay down on the wood floor or tatami. Hitomi called her aunt who is living in Urawa, which was 30 km away from Sugito. Her aunt’s husband came to pick up Hitomi the next day, on March 19. When she arrived at her aunt’s home, she was surprised to find that the six members of her younger brother’s family were already there. Her younger brother’s family have never been in the refuge accommodation. On the way to the aunt’s house her younger brother’s family had stopped at the homes of various relatives and were taken care of. Hitomi’s mother continued to ignore the evacuation order and stayed with the cows. The police and the Self-Defense Forces came many times, but her mother hid in a shed or somewhere else on the property whenever they came. In the old farmhouse, there were any number of places where a petite old woman could hide herself. However, knowing she was there the people such as police, fire brigade, or and the Self-Defense Forces who came to persuade her gradually increased, and the house came to be surrounded. After more than two weeks, she was “caught” and forced to leave her home. Hitomi stayed with her aunt and uncle in Urawa in Saitama Prefecture until September when she entered temporary housing in Iwaki City in Fukushima Prefecture. Because the younger brother continued to hold his job at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, he and his families came back to Fukushima one month after the accident. They rented a house outside the evacuation zone, and the younger brother began commuting from there to the Nuclear Power Plant. Hitomi remained in her aunt’s house. Hitomi’s mother stayed with a relative in Fukushima for several months before moving into the same temporary housing complex in Iwaki where Hitomi had ended up.

5.4

The Animals I Left Behind

Once Hitomi had settled at her aunt’s in Saitama, she focused again on her animals. She could not sleep at night and felt devastated whenever she looked up at the sky. Her younger brother who was in Fukushima had gone to the house and had let the cows and the dog into the field. Although any return to the area was prohibited, he would feed the animals on his way to work. However, he was unable to report on the cats. Toranosuke was very smart, and she often left a lizard, a snake, or a

98

H. KAJIWARA

bird at the cats’ door to the shed when she came in the morning to have her food. Hitomi was in the practice of her every time Toranosuke did so, saying things like “You are a great, awesome and good hunter.” Hitomi also mentioned having seen her play tag with the raccoon up on the hill at the back of the property. Before she knew whether the cat was female or male, she had named the cat “Toranosuke” as male name. However, Toranosuke was a very strong female cat. Hitomi also mentioned having seen her play tag with the raccoon dog up on the hill at the back of the property. Although she soon afterward took Toranosuke to be neutered, she remained a “wild child” in the field, rolling over and showing her stomach whenever she wanted to play with Hitomi. Toranosuke never enters the house and demands Hitomi’s attention when she is out pulling weeds in the field. While Hitomi was rather confident that Toranosuke would be able to look after herself and survive on her own, she worried about the male house cat Kurosuke who was kept inside and got sick easily. He could not feed himself and would find it difficult to live outside because he is very timid. He couldn’t even climb a tree. From April 22, 6 weeks after the explosion at the nuclear power plant, the Japanese government had decided, families such as Hitomi’s would not be able to return to properties that sat within the 20-kilometer radius drawn around Fukushima’s No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. As that date approached, many residents darted back to their homes to retrieve valuables. All of Tomioka Town lie within 20 km from the nuclear power plant. Hitomi too wanted to go to home. Although she had left her car in Kawauchi, she found someone also evacuated to the Big Palette Fukushima in Koriyama City who could drive her to Kawauchi on the 21st. Hitomi found her car in Kawauchi Village just as it was. She was relieved to find that her car still worked and drove herself home. By the time she got home it was dark and the town empty of all residents, a gate had already been erected for the next day when travel within the 20 km radius would be prohibited, and a police officer warned her that she needed to be out by midnight. It was her first time back after a month away, in spite of she had intended to leave house for just a few days. With the power out, she had to fish around in the dark with only a flashlight. She packed her valuables and clothes into the car. Her brother had already taken out valuables from the main house so concentrated only on her own things.

5

I HAVE LOST THE MEANING TO LIVE

99

And there was Lucky [Shiba Inu]. The cats were not there, but the dog was. Lucky chased me for a while., I was wanting to take him with me. However, I could not do so. If I took him, ahh, there’d be trouble at shelter at Big Palette. I would also need to return to my aunt’s home in Saitama from Big Palette, so I couldn’t impose on them with Lucky. And that is where my regret began, causing me great pangs of guilt. Therefore, I left him behind saying “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” Yah, I should have brought him with me at that time. The dog was running around the house, around and around, and barking loudly. I saw to it that there would be enough dog food, but yah, I think my feeling of great regret comes from that moment.

The government started to allow temporary access into the restricted areas for the inhabitants in May in 2011. Hitomi went several times to Koriyama from Saitama by the train, traveling the last stretch back to Yonomori bus along with other residents. This temporary access was very limited. Once or twice a week, 100 residents of 50 households could go into Tomioka. The Tomioka Town government chosen residents to access by lottery for each administrative district unit. Since Tomioka has 16,000 inhabitants, this was a daunting task. All selected residents took the bus that was arranged. Everyone had to stop at the relay station and wore protective clothing for radioactivity. Then the bus moved again and entered Tomioka Town. After a few hours at home, the residents were able to take home their property for one 70 cm × 70 cm plastic bag (Tomioka Town 2015b: 60–61). The residents were not allowed to take the animals. After leaving the evacuation zone, all residents must be screened for radioactivity. If people and things were contaminated, they were decontaminated. Since September 2011, the Japanese government has allowed the residents to go home by car, but when Hitomi first came home, it was still not possible (Fig. 5.1). When she visited in July, she called her animals’ names out loud, but only Toranoshuke responded. She had lost a good bit of her weight and came out stumbling from the mountain side. Her collar had become considerably looser on her skinny neck. Hitomi had written her own name and phone number on the collar before the accident. However, even if somebody found Toranosuke, the person could not reach her because she was not home in this case. The dog Lucky, the cat Kurosuke, and the cows were all missing. Since April 22 when Tomioka was segmented by gate, Hitomi’s brother could not enter Tomioka Town no longer. Therefore, the animals did not get food from anyone. Toranosuke

100

H. KAJIWARA

Fig. 5.1 Map of the evacuation route of Hitomi Sato (Made by the author from interview data)

was running around for four months from the volunteers who found the invasion routes somehow for animal rescue or feeding. The police and the Self-Defense Forces of the white hazmat suit that patrolled in this area were just a subject of fear for Toranosuke. Toranosuke was looking for food on his own and taking care of his own needs. Therefore, I absolutely adore her, and she is much too lovely for that. But I had to go back straight to Big Palette Fukushima then on to Saitama. There was no way I could take the cat with me, you know? A cat that was likely to die on her own.

Although it broke her heart to separate with Toranosuke who had survived thus far, her aunt already had a dog in the house, and it was not possible to suddenly introduce an unfamiliar animal into the mix. So, when the Tomioka Town officials said “We will take care of your cat and … will leave your cat at a shelter for pets in Koriyama. Ms. Sato, everything will be fine.” Somewhat relieved, I agreed to that arrangement. That’s why. I came back by bus crying all the way.

5

I HAVE LOST THE MEANING TO LIVE

101

Japan’s Ministry of the Environment and the Fukushima Prefectural Government began to deal with companion animals in the evacuation zones in May 2011. Although guardians were not allowed to take their pets away from the contaminated zones, the two governments provided minimal support by lending out pet supplies such as leashes and the carry cases while the temporary access. At the time of temporarily home visiting, the residents had to rescue their pets by themselves. Owners leashed their animals to a secure anchor in front of their houses to later be picked up by a prefectural operative for radiation screening. Small animals were caged and placed in front of the house. The animals were then brought back to their owner. When guardians were unable to live with their pets, the animals would be accommodated at the animal shelter run by the Fukushima Prefecture Animal Rescue Headquarters. The animal shelter ended up looking after 1008 dogs and cats total by December 2015 (Fukushima Prefecture Animal Rescue Headquarters 2015). Hitomi’s Toranosuke was left by Hitomi in a cage to be rescued by this operation. Kurosuke and Lucky were never found (Photo 5.1).

5.5 Hell with the Animals or Without the Animals After Hitomi moved to the temporary housing that allowed pets in Iwaki City in September 2011, she made the over one-hour drive on March 2012 to Miharu to pick up Toranosuke at animal shelter where she had been kept. Therefore, Toranosuke spent 8 months in an animal shelter cage. Hitomi had wanted to visit Toranosuke much earlier, but her car had problems. It took time to repair the car. She was also hesitant to drive. Since a reluctance has grown during her 25 years working in Sendai when she did not drive at all. The animal shelter in Miharu Town in Fukushima Prefecture was 80 km away from the temporary housing those she was living. Although she had begun to drive after returning to Yonomori in Tomioka Town in order to take her grandmother to the hospital, the places she could go to were limited to her neighborhood. After rushing home on April 21 night, Hitomi simply followed the car of her friend to get to the Big Palette Fukushima. She was particularly afraid to drive on the expressway alone. Finally, she had been overwhelmed by the amount of administrative paper work that had been required by the authorities.

102

H. KAJIWARA

Photo 5.1 The evacuation zone in Fukushima (Volunteers walk shelter dogs daily near the decontamination radioactive waste bags in the evacuation zone in Fukushima [upper panel], a gate that separates the “difficult-to-return zone” in Fukushima [bottom left], and monitoring post that measures the radiation dose in air for 24 hours [bottom right]) (Source Author’s fieldwork on July 29, 2015, August 24, 2015, and May 18, 2016)

Additionally, she knew and trusted the management veterinarian at the Miharu animal shelter where Toranosuke was being held. Masamichi Watanabe had always assisted with the birth or castration of the family’s cows and had always made house call to the family’s farmhouse. When Watanabe came, Lucky cheerfully leaped on him and followed him around. Moreover, Toranosuke had been praised by all the shelter’s staff as “quiet a good girl.” Once Hitomi had taken Toranosuke home to her temporary housing unit, she came to realize that the cat’s personality had changed completely. The wildly playful cat had become extremely nervous. Frightened by the slightest sound, Toranosuke would hide herself away. Wanting to provide

5

I HAVE LOST THE MEANING TO LIVE

103

a calmer environment for Toranosuke, she used the reparation payment from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) to buy a relatively new existing house outside the refuge area. However, Toranosuke did not change. She commented that Toranosuke wouldn’t go out even if the front door was open. She remained frightened by any sound and spent all day watching TV with Hitomi. In May 2015, Toranoshuke died with symptoms akin to those of cancer. I think it was a cancer. She had a blood test, an echo graphic examination and various other tests. Toranosuke usually slept until the afternoon. As she got up in the morning on her last day, I knew something was seriously wrong. She fell over and flopped about here and there. That turned into a convulsion. Then twitching, like acting violently. Nevertheless, I thought I had to be by her side when she died, that I should look at her in her final moments of agony even if it was very hard to do so.

Hitomi spent that night with Toranosuke who was by then gradually becoming quite stiff. The next day Hitomi buried Toranosuke in the backyard at her family’s farm in Yonomori in what had then become a “difficult-to-return zone.” She was still blaming herself because she couldn’t rescue her animals. She continued to look for Lucky and Kurosuke. She went to several private animal shelters in Kashima Ward in Soma City in Fukushsima looking for her animals. She also checked through the booklets that provided information regarding dogs and cats that had been rescued. Hitomi applied to the Fukushima Prefecture government for an access permission to enter the restricted areas many times. She set up a cage to hoping that Kurosuke might venture back. She also installed a surveillance camera in the shed for when Shiba dog Lucky might be back. During those months Hitomi met many volunteers who had come from all over Japan to help with the rescuing or feeding of the animals that had been left behind. Hitomi came to be relied upon as a local coordinator by them, and applied for more than 200 temporary entrance permits for them to enter the evacuation zone. In the world where the all humans had disappeared and the animals were roaming about freely, and there were the corpses of those that had succumbed to starvation. Although the volunteers tried their best to assist the animals, the challenges were many, as Hitomi recounted in our discussions:

104

H. KAJIWARA

While it was okay that the volunteers would help, they didn’t know where to look for each of the missing animals. And they didn’t know the place names. …… Or hey, were freaking out because they had caught many animals at the same time. When I was working with the volunteers, they didn’t understand at all where they had caught the animal. They often didn’t know whether they were in Yonomori, Futaba, or Okuma[the name of a place in the evacuation ordered areas].

If the volunteer did not know the place where they rescued the animal and if they leave no clue as to the place, coordinators would later be unable to connect the animals with their rightful owners. There was no central place where a careful registry was being kept. As a result, the rescued animals were taken to various locations in Japan. For example, in northern prefectures such as Niigata, Tokyo area, western Japan such as Hiroshima Prefecture, and Kyushu Island in south. Though most volunteers were helpful in saving many a companion animal and worked conscientiously, the result of their efforts was that many pets were permanently separated from their guardians. In other words, it was almost impossible to let reunion the owner with the animal once the activists brought animals to activity bases. It was also the case that the quality of the assistance they provided varied enormously. Volunteers ranged from the superb to the appalling. There were the people who called themselves “volunteers” and then stole money or anything from the properties they entered. Damn any and all as I am no longer able to trust human beings. The people whom I can really trust now are just only Eri-chan and Kita-san [two of the volunteers]. Though I received many business cards from the volunteers, each listing an affiliation and had to work side by side many of the volunteers, I developed a close relationship with only a few.

Some of the self-styled “volunteers” appeared on television and talked about “their” animal rescue activity in Fukushima. For Hitomi many were just performing to raise funds and had not really been involved on the ground. She is now quite skeptical of those who claim to be a volunteer until she sees them doing some of the hard work. In the future, she would decline their request for assistance unless she felt she could really trust them. The fact remains that by at the point of interview in 2015 she could no longer see any dogs or cats wandering around in the evacuation zone. Hitomi thinks that Kurosuke with his weak constitution may already be

5

I HAVE LOST THE MEANING TO LIVE

105

dead. On the other hand, the smart and friendly Lucky could still be alive somewhere. Even so, without the recorded information, she is at a loss to find him. She always reflects on the likelihood he was still alive: Well, if Lucky is kept by somebody and the new owner has spoiled him, it may be good life in its own way. If, however, he is alive and is always feeling hungry and is still running around having to fend for himself, that’s a tragedy.

Hitomi frequently thinks about the numerous animals that are now missing or dead. Volunteers fenced off an area in the evacuation zone in Tomioka Town for the cattle that survived. Some considerate people donated for the feed. When Hitomi tries to talk to other evacuees about the animals, she is always interrupted, told to give up or just forget about the animals lost. Her younger brother and his families did not even try to look for Lucky whom they loved. They were just too busy getting on with their everyday lives. So, everybody wants to forget about the animals? I wonder what they are thinking. It doesn’t make sense to me. I have seen the reality, and, well, I am very irritated by that. I can’t forgive myself simply because I can’t do anything. My animals are still important to me, like a family. Once we have kept the animals, we should take care of them until they die. It’s a very complicated mix of thoughts.

Hitomi continues to dwell on what she could have done. She wishes she had been more resolute in dealing with various matters when the evacuation occurred and blames herself for not having taken her animals with her. She continues to find it difficult to recognize that the circumstances at the time were beyond her control. Hitomi saw those guardians who had brought their companion animals to an evacuation center, and then stayed with them in cold vehicles while the snow fell outside in the parking lots when they were not allowed to enter the gym. There was not enough food for the humans, and no one thought of taking food for their pets. However, Hitomi did take rice balls from the shelter and gave them to a friend and her dog who were staying in one of the cars at outside. The guardians had hesitated to come in and receive any of the food on offer in the evacuee center.

106

H. KAJIWARA

Still now, I don’t know what to do about the evacuating pets. Or rather, I was thinking that I had better not take them to any of the evacuation centers. Having said that, it also felt wrong leaving the animals behind at the house. I saw dogs that had starved to death locked in their houses in Namie Town and Futaba Town. What was worse, they were the small indoor dogs such as Shih Tzu, Chihuahua and things like that. When I was going on patrol with Eri-chan who was a volunteer, we came across many dead dogs. Dried so hard, they looked like the mummies. Still nobody came back to collect them. It was hell to take the animals, and it was hell to leave them behind. Therefore I do not know what I should have chosen for my animals.

Turning philosophical, Hitomi reflected further, Well, because all we are the creatures of the universe, I think one life is as important as the other. I think the life of one cat and that of one human being carry the same value. And the life of one cow as well. I… I never think that human beings are important or great just because they are humans. Recently I have come to think that way.

Although she knows there are many dogs and cats needing a home, each of equal value to herself and the animals she has lost, Hitomi is not ready even though she has been asked by the animal rescue activists to adopt a dog or cat. She thinks she would have 4 or 5 companion animals if she were in a “normal” state. However, she cannot consider living with the animals at present.

5.6

Directionless

Hitomi now visits her home in Yonomori area in Tomioka Town for a few hours once every two months to look after her house. That is all that is permitted by the government. It is her home where she should have happily been able to spend her years in retirement, a dream broken into pieces by the nuclear plant accident. There remain a lot of dreams that she wanted to realize. The dreams provide a flicker of hope, a weak purpose for living. It is not yet, and may never be, possible for her to neglect this house. Although the Japanese government lifted the evacuation order for most of Tomioka in April 2017, Hitomi’s house lies inside of the “difficult-toreturn zone,” and she does not know when she will be allowed to return.

5

I HAVE LOST THE MEANING TO LIVE

107

Decontamination has not yet started in this area, and she understands that she will not be able to return there for the time being. In the meantime, her younger brother purchased a 990 square meter plot of land and built a new house. He was able to do so using the compensation received from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), and their mother has begun to live with her younger brother’s family. Hitomi supposes that others think she has begun to move forward to “independence” as she has already left the temporary housing complex in Iwaki. However, her assessment of where she is in life remains quite different. “I am telling you,” she confides, “I can’t think about anything now. I have no reason to stay here in Iwaki City anymore because my brother is now taking care of our mother.” Toranosuke who comforted Hitomi and cuddled up to her while she was watching TV is gone. Although she wants to work part-time in order to remain connected to society, she has not been able to find employ. Because she is in her mid-fifties, many are reluctant to hire her. Victims of the explosion at the No. 1 nuclear plant now receive a monthly stipend of J¥100,000 (about US$922) from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). It is meant as compensation for not only the loss of living place but also their mental pain (which sometimes includes a cold stare from other people). Hitomi now spends a lot of time considering the existential questions and trying to figure out why she is still here. She is beginning to feel that she should probably go to an entirely different place she does not know and start all over again. She thinks that she does not need to be in Japan. Putting such thoughts into words, I have come to think that there is no particular purpose served by my continuing to live. Like there is nothing I need to work hard to achieve. I no longer know the value of living. So, I can’t put my thoughts together. I can no longer decide what is good for myself.

Hitomi wants to talk to somebody who would understand her. However, when she approaches someone who might fill that role, she is often told to “stay strong,” advice she now finds offensive. I am sorry to tell you, but I will not be strong. I never try to stay strong anymore. I’m not going to stay strong. Absolutely not! No matter how often you repeat, “Let’s stay strong, let’s stay strong” it won’t do any good. I no longer have the resources to stay strong.

108

H. KAJIWARA

Through the bitter dispute with the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) over compensation, Hitomi has become estranged from her family. She is, however, able to interact empathetically with a friend who survived the tsunami elsewhere in Miyagi Prefecture, observing that “it’s tough time on both of us.” Nevertheless, Hitomi feels guilty that only the refugees in Fukushima are receiving compensation, an admission that makes it impossible to her friend about money. Even among the refugees of Tomioka Town there seems to be a code of silence about who received how much compensation form TEPCO—a payout that differed depending on whether one lived in their own house or a rented house, and on the evacuation zone involved. Many people who are not refugees complain and ask refugees why they should get money for lounging around every day and still being able to buy a new car. Hitomi thinks that such people know too little about the realities of being a refugee. People who are not refugee well know about the amount of money that victims receive by report of press, sometime are jealous of it. However, people are not interested in much of the each victim’s loss such as land, family, life, and relationships with animals. I sometimes think that it would have been better if I had lost everything to the tsunami. Though I am truly sorry for the people in Iwate or Miyagi who have suffered more than me. But does that meant that I can start all over again? I guess I could. I still have a family grave and house so I attached to them yet. I wonder that’s why, I can not move on.

Hitomi is confused about the meaning of a move forward. That is because she continues to feel uncertain about what the future holds. Will she ever be able to return to her house? Can she trust the optimistic pronouncements of the various governments and their advice “to stay strong”? Approximately nine years have passed since the nuclear explosion and she is still left her putting the future on hold.

References Literature in Japanese Fukushima Prefecture Animal Rescue Headquarters [Fukushimaken dobutsu kyugo honbu]. (2015). Miharu sheruta no heisa ni tsuite [About closing of Miharu animal shelter]. Retrieved October 22, 2019, from https://www.vet erinary-adoption.com/search/fukushima.php.

5

I HAVE LOST THE MEANING TO LIVE

109

Kawauchi Village. (2014). Kawachimura no kiroku: Higashinihon daishinsai Tokyodenryoku fukushima Daiichi Genshiryoku Hatsudensho Jiko [Records of Kawauchi Village: Great East Japan Earthquake TEPCO Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Station Accident] [Pdf file]. Retrieved January 15, 2017, from http://www.kawauchimura.jp/pdf/2016/kiroku.pdf. Tomioka Town. (2015a). Higashinihon daishinsai genshiryoku saigai no kioku to kiroku [Memories and records of the Great East Japan Earthquake and nuclear disaster] Dai 1-sho “shinsai hassei kara no 1-kagetsu” [Chapter 1 “One month since the earthquake”] [Pdf file]. Retrieved October 22, 2019, from https:// www.tomioka-town.jp/material/files/group/3/1.pdf. Tomioka Town. (2015b). Higashinihon daishinsai genshiryoku saigai no kioku to kiroku [Memories and records of the Great East Japan Earthquake and nuclear disaster] Dai 2-sho “zencho hinan no naka kara (genshiryoku saigai hinan)” [Chapter 2 “During the Whole Town Evacuation (Nuclear Disaster Evacuation)”] [Pdf file]. Retrieved October 22, 2019, from https://www. tomioka-town.jp/material/files/group/3/2.pdf.

CHAPTER 6

Making Choices Regarding Companion Animals

6.1

Three Choices for Guardians

The Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) nuclear disaster was the largest postSecond World War crisis in Japan. According to national survey reports and an investigation by journalists (National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Kokkai jikocho Tokyo denryoku Fukushima genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko chosa iinkai 2012; Funabashi 2016), there was a possibility that East Japan in its entirety, including Tokyo, could have been lost due to nuclear contamination. If the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) had withdrawn from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, there would be no other option than to have Russian or American troops land and settle the situation. Prime Minister Naoto Kan (who was in office at that time) was most afraid of Japan’s loss of sovereignty as a realistic and impending possibility. The residents of the municipalities surrounding the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant who were closest to the crisis were, without exaggeration, on the verge of witnessing the end of the world. However, at the time, it was not clear to the residents just what was happening, as can be seen from Hitomi Sato’s trip to draw water from the river in a neighboring village (Chapter 5). Of the 12 local governments in the areas around the nuclear power plant, only three— Futaba, Okuma, and Tamura City—were notified of an evacuation order by either the Japanese government or the prefectural government. © The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_6

111

112

H. KAJIWARA

The other municipalities began evacuation based on reports from the media or the independent judgment of the head of the local government. Many made the decision to evacuate on their own (National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission [Kokkai jikocho Tokyo denryoku Fukushima genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko chosa iinkai] 2012: 359–360, ex, Katsurao Village (Katsurao Village) 2015: 16). Many of the area residents left home that day without knowing of the nuclear disaster. The Fukushima prefectural government published its “Manual for the Rescue of Animals (Pets) in Disasters” in 2007. The manual instructed owners to accompany their pets during a disaster in the following manner: Animal owners should try to bring their animals, to the extent possible, when evacuating in the event of a disaster. If the owner is unable be take the animal along, for the purpose of love and protection for animals [dobutsu aigo], the owner should endeavor not to leave the animal for an extended period, except in the emergency situation immediately following the disaster. (Fukushima Prefecture 2015: 6–7)

However, on the occasion of the evacuation following the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear disaster in 2011, the Fukushima Prefecture government took a stance prioritizing human life and did not allow residents to evacuate with their companion animals, or any animals at all (Kawamata 2014: 84). As a result, the Fukushima administration, which operated the first stage shelters, banned pets from entering the shelters. Animals that were evacuated with their guardians had to be leashed outside or stay with their owner in the owner’s car if the owner had left home in his/her private vehicle (Morisawa 2014: 71). When many of the residents began their evacuation, the policy of the prefecture had not yet been promulgated, which meant that more than a few of the owners evacuated with their companion animals. The number of companion animals that went to the shelters with their owners was difficult to estimate since the evacuees repeatedly moved in response to instructions regarding the expansion of the evacuation area (ibid.: 71). The behavior of the guardians in Fukushima was rather complex relative to that of the pet owners in the tsunami area. The human family had broken apart and animals were separated from their owners; some went back to their homes to feed or capture their pets. Many of the guardians who owned both dogs and cats left their cats behind. As a

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

113

result, it is difficult to determine whether and which guardians were able to evacuate with their animals. Accordingly, this chapter outlines three frameworks to describe the range of guardian actions: (1) evacuating with their companion animals, (2) evacuating without their companion animals, and (3) resisting evacuation. Chapter 7 explores the causes for this complexity in guardian behavior. 6.1.1

Evacuating with Companion Animals

6.1.1.1

Cases Where Guardians and Their Companion Animals Evacuated Together and Are Still Together As mentioned, in this study, interview surveys were conducted mainly in temporary public housing. Victims who voluntarily evacuated with their animals before they were instructed to evacuate by the government and who have had settled outside Fukushima Prefecture on their own were not subject to the interviews. However, in a later supplementary survey, such persons were also interviewed. Virtually all of these cases involved the families or relatives of nuclear power plant-related employees who had access to accident information before most others in the area. There were several additional factors that allowed them to escape relatively quickly: They tended to be younger, had a means of transportation, enjoyed enriched social capital, and, to some extent, were wealthier. Overall, it can be said to these were very exceptional refugees. Many other general refugees with animals headed to the first stage refuge facilities using their own car or by bus. They struggled in the shelters and some moved into the homes of relatives. A few months later, many moved into temporary housing, where they were allowed to keep their pets. Their behavior was similar in many ways to that of pet owners in the tsunami area. However, in Fukushima, the evacuation centers operated by local governments were relocated many times, as the radioactive contamination continued to spread. Since the handling of pets was different at each facility, owners had to adjust to the rules at each new location. Mr. AF According to Mr. AF (age 64) who is a former employee of construction company, many people gave up their dogs during evacuation, either taking them to animal control centers, turning them over to volunteers, or simply letting them go off into the mountains. At the local welfare

114

H. KAJIWARA

facility, Rikuo was the only dog remaining. Although Mr. AF was pressured by the people at the facility to give the dog up, he steadfastly refused. For Mr. AF, Rikuo was not his property but rather “a life he has borrowed.” Therefore, even though he was being pressured by others, he felt that he could not make the decision to either dispose of Rikuo or let him go. However, he was nervously careful about keeping the dog at the welfare facility as he was the only one with a pet. A few months later, Mr. AF moved into pet-friendly temporary housing with his wife and Rikuo. Ideally, he would have liked to keep Rikuo in a large outside space, but there was no such space available around his container-type temporary home. Consequently, at present, Mr. AF keeps Rikuo in a cage indoors. Mr. OF Mr. OF (age 81), a farmer, lived with his male Labrador, Muku, in Katsurao Village, where Mr. AF also lived. Koriyama City is 50 km from Katsurao Village. During the evacuation, Mr. OF moved from his wife’s family home twice in search of a good environment for Muku. The first place was a rental apartment that allowed dogs; the second was a rented detached house. In August 2011, Mr. OF entered temporary public housing where pets were allowed. Mr. OF felt that his temporary housing was too small for a Labrador, but it had a shared dog yard with others living in the same area. Here, the environment for dogs was, at least to some extent, secured. While living in a rental apartment, his wife was unable to meet her village neighbors, so very lonely. Here in the temporary housing operated by Katsurao Village, residents are able to interact in much the same way as in their former village residences. Thus, Mr. OF’s wife is able to be among her good friends again. Mrs. BBF On the afternoon of March 11, 2011, Mrs. BBF’s daughter, who lived in the neighborhood, came to warn her mother of the tsunami and urged her to evacuate. Mrs. BBF drove to Tomioka High School in her car with her two daughters, along with their female Pomeranian named Lynn, and the married couple from next door. Mrs. BBF was unable to get in touch with her husband, who was working at the Tomioka Town Hall. The next day, the refugees who gathered at Tomioka High School had to move to the Tamura High School Gymnasium in Miharu, 60 km away, as the

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

115

danger of radioactivity was imminent. When she boarded the bus that was provided by the town, she was directed to leave the dog on the spot. Mrs. BBF resisted, saying, “Then I will not to go anywhere.” Eventually, Lynn was allowed to board the bus with her owner and, along with the others, was moved to the second stage shelter in Miharu, where Mrs. BBF reunited with her husband and mother-in-law. The family made their way to Fukushima Airport, some 30 km away, in an attempt to get to Kanagawa Prefecture, where the sister of Mrs. BBF’s husband was living. Lacking a cage or even a leash for Lynn, they explained to the airport ground staff that they had been evacuated after the nuclear disaster. In sympathy, the staff lent them a cage for the small dog. Traveling 270 km, they eventually arrived at the sister’s house in Kanagawa Prefecture. However, the sister took quite a cold attitude toward Lynn and Mrs. BBF’s family, all of whom had been exposed to radiation. First, the sister requested Mrs. BBF and other family members go to Sento (a traditional Japanese public bath) before entering her house. Next, Mrs. BBF family’s clothes were bagged like contaminants and all discarded. The sister ordered Mrs. BBF to keep Lynn who had lived only indoors, in the backyard. Accordingly, a few days after their arrival, they moved from sister’s house to Mrs. BBF’s uncle’s house in Tochigi Prefecture, 170 km from Kanagawa Prefecture. The uncle loved dogs and Lynn was a favorite of his. In September 2011, Mrs. BBF’s family moved again, this time to a pet-friendly temporary housing facility in Iwaki City, Fukushima Prefecture, 150 km from the uncle’s house. 6.1.1.2

Cases Where Guardians and Their Companion Animals Evacuated Together but Are Now Living Apart Some guardians initially evacuated with their companion animals but for various reasons were living separately from the animals at the time of the interview. At first glance, these evacuees may appear to have abandoned their animals. However, listening carefully to each of their stories reveals that the owners believed that their decision was best for the animals and that the choice was made, at least in part, out of consideration for the other refugees living around them. Mrs. DDF Mrs. DDF (age 58) was a librarian in Tomioka in Fukushima before the earthquake. She drove a minivan, with space enough to evacuate from Tomioka with her female cat, Saya, in a cage. Mrs. DDF went to the

116

H. KAJIWARA

evacuation center in Tamura City’s Takine Gymnasium, about 43 km away, with her husband, son (in his 20s), and Saya. As pets were not allowed to stay in the evacuation center, the four of them slept in the car for several days. Mrs. DDF worried about the stress on her cat and, on March 16, headed to her parents’ home in Akita Prefecture, 400 km from the gymnasium. Mrs. DDF’s husband soon returned to his job in Fukushima. Mrs. DDF, her son, and Saya lived in Akita for half a year. Her husband rented a house in Iwaki City, where the influence of radioactivity was relatively light. Mrs. DDF followed her husband to Iwaki City in September 2011. At that time, she did not bring her cat. Saya had gotten used to the house in Akita, and Mrs. DDF was hesitant to bring Saya to yet another unfamiliar place. Moreover, pets were prohibited in their rented house. Although she believed that she could have secretly kept the cat in the rented house, the environment for the cat would have been much worse than the environment in the large farmhouse in Akita, as the rented house was small and hot. Mrs. DDF chose to live away from Saya. She recently built a house in the yard of her parents’ home in Akita, and, after retiring in a few years, she hopes to return to Akita and live with Saya. Mr. JF/Mrs. JF Mr. JF (age 70) was retired and lived in Katsurao Village. His daughter was married and lived in Namie, close to the nuclear power plant. Immediately after the earthquake, 22 family members or in-laws of his daughter arrived at Mr. JF’s house as part of the evacuation from Namie. (Katsurao Village is a little farther from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant than Namie.) The daughter’s mother-in-law worked at the nuclear power plant, but that day she was off from work and they came together to Mr. JF’s house. The next day, on March 12, 2019, insider information that a hydrogen explosion had occurred at the power plant was given to the mother-in-law by one of her coworkers. About 30 people at Mr. JF’s house suddenly began to leave. Mrs. JF (age 66) took her family, including her daughter and grandchildren, to her sister’s house in Fukushima City, 50 km away. The family had a female Labrador (a large dog) named Lara. Mr. JF went to his parents’ home in Miyagi Prefecture, about 160 km away, with Lara. Mr. JF was a community leader, having been elected Ku-cho. This position is a bit different from a ward Mayor in an urban city. Mr. JF asked

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

117

his brother to care for Lara at their parents’ home in Miyagi. He then returned to Fukushima and joined the evacuating villagers. At the end of April 2011, the village leadership asked residents, including Mr. JF, to go to Tatami Town, Minamiaizu-County, Fukushima Prefecture, which was to serve as a second stage shelter. Although Mr. JF, along with his wife, made the trip to Tadami Town, about 170 km from Katsurao Village, Mrs. JF felt it was too far from home. The next day, the couple moved to a resort hotel in Ono Town, Tamura-County, Fukushima, which was another candidate for a second shelter and only 40 km from Katsurao Village. At that time, his son’s family, including a young grandchild, had already been evacuated to Chiba Prefecture, about 270 km away, to avoid the radioactive contamination. In August 2011, Mr. JF and his wife moved into temporary housing where they would be allowed to live with their pet. Mr. JF went to Miyagi Prefecture to pick up Lara and the three began to again live together. Lara is a very friendly dog, jumping on everyone while wagging her tail. Because of this exuberance, Mr. JF and his wife were worried that Lara would injure one of the elderly persons or tiny infants living in the temporary housing complex. After consulting with the Katsurao Village office, they fenced in a vacant area in the complex and kept Lara there. However, despite their good intentions, their effort to be good neighbors backfired, provoking the antipathy of other residents. One resident complained to the village officer, “Mr. JF privately owns a place for a dog even though it is not his land.” Mr. JF and his wife attempted to explain the character and circumstances of Lara to the residents. Gradually, the understanding of the other residents was gained, but the couple had to return to work. Mr. JF and his wife thought that if Lara were to cause some kind of disturbance during the day, it would produce an irreversible problem. Consequently, they returned Lara to their former home in Katsurao Village, in the evacuated area (Photo 6.1). As an employee of the reconstruction association, Mr. JF goes to Katsurao Village every day. Since his house is in a “restricted residence area,” he cannot remain overnight; however, he can enter and leave freely during the day. Every lunchtime, Mr. JF goes home, feeds and waters Lara, and feeds the cats he had left behind. The garage where Lara lives has a space where she can move about, as well as a roof. Mr. JF and his wife go home every weekend and walk Lara in the mountains (Fig. 6.1).

118

H. KAJIWARA

Photo 6.1 Cats and dogs in the evacuation zone (Lara’s guardian, Mr. JF comes to the barn for feeding her every day [bottom right]) (Source Author’s fieldwork on September 14, 2013 [upper left], on July 29, 2015 [upper right and bottom left] and September 15, 2014 [bottom right])

6.1.1.3

Cases Where Guardians Evacuated with Some of Their Companion Animals and Left Others Behind

Mr. JJF In Iitate Village in Fukushima, the planned evacuation of residents began on May 15, 2011. Iitate Village is located more than 30 km from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant and so it was initially considered safe for residents to remain. However, it was later found that considerable radioactive contamination had reached the village. In response, the Japanese government implemented an operation to evacuate all of the village residents two months after the accident. Because he had cattle there, Mr. JJF (age 65), a local farmer, temporarily rented a house near the village and went to the village every day to feed his cows. Although he took his mixed breed, middle-sized dog, Taro, to the rented house,

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

119

Fig. 6.1 Map of the complicated evacuation routes: Case of Mr. JF/Mrs. JF (Made by the author from interview data)

120

H. KAJIWARA

he left his two cats behind in his home in Iitate Village, feeling that the cats should not be moved from the familiar surroundings of the house. In addition, he thought cats need to live freely outside or inside and it disgraceful to keep cats indoors in the rented temporary house. In June 2011, Mr. JJF shipped his cattle, and thus there was no longer a need to feed them. However, Mr. JJF continued feeding his cats every day, as he was still returning home to maintain his house and his fields. Of the two cats, one has since disappeared. There are still two cats in the home, since the missing cat left a kitten. Mr. JJF intends to return to Iitate Village when the evacuation order in the restricted residence area is lifted. Mrs. CCF Mrs. CCF (age 65) had been engaged in animal welfare activities as a volunteer. She served as a member of a group that collaborated with the animal control center in Fukushima. As such, she was an expert guardian. However, she had to leave her cats during the evacuation. Through her animal welfare activities, she had had many opportunities to adopt dogs and cats. Indeed, at the time of the 2011 earthquake, she was living in Tomioka Town in Fukushima with four dogs, ten cats, her husband, her husband’s father, and her daughter’s family. It was a large family that included five humans and 14 animals. Her daughter and son lived nearby with their spouses, and her husband’s mother lived in a small care home in Kawauchi Village, the next village to Tomioka, 25 km away. On the morning of March 12, 2011, as Mrs. CCF was letting one of the dogs outside, a member of the fire brigade approached her and yelled, “What are you doing? It’s Level four!” Neither Mrs. CCF nor her husband knew what “level four” meant, but nevertheless decided to evacuate with the family. She took only two of the four dogs, thinking, “Let’s leave the big dogs because we can go home tomorrow.” Her son’s family had been evacuated at an early stage, moving to Saitama Prefecture, where his wife’s family lived. Because Saitama Prefecture is 250 km from Tomioka, it was safer for families with small children. When Mrs. CCF left her home, she left behind a large amount of pet food for her medium-sized dogs and cats. Like most of the people, she expected the evacuation to last one or two days. She and her family went to a relative’s house in Kawauchi Village, but that evening realized that Kawauchi was also dangerous. She and her family then left the relative’s home and drove approximately 40 km to the home of a guardian dog

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

121

foster parent who was an acquaintance of Mrs. CCF in Miharu Town in Fukushima. By that time, she had come to realize that she would not be able to return home anytime soon. On March 14, Mrs. CCF’s husband returned to unoccupied Tomioka town by car and brought the two remaining Corgi dogs back to the couple’s temporary home in Miharu. He left a generous amount of cat food for the ten cats and said to the abandoned pets, “I’m sorry,” as he opened the window. According to Mrs. CCF, they gave priority to the dogs because they believed that the cats could survive by eating frogs, whereas the dogs could not. Mrs. CCF sent her husband’s parents to Tokyo via Niigata Prefecture (on the Sea of Japan side of Japan), as the railway between Tokyo and Fukushima had stopped running. One of the husband’s sisters in Tokyo took care of her elderly parents for a while. Mrs. CCF and her husband and her daughter’s family changed locations, one after another, to escape the radioactivity—from Miharu Town to an acquaintance’s house in Aizuwakamatsu in Fukushima Prefecture, and from there to a national youth hostel in Takayama Village in Gunma Prefecture, more than 200 km away, with an acquaintance’s family. On the way, Mrs. CCF’s mother joined the group. It was like a caravan of humans and animals. In August 2011, her daughter’s husband returned to see the house in Fukushima, but found none of the cats there. An animal rescue volunteer contacted Mrs. CCF, saying, “There is a cat who looks like yours in Tokyo.” Mrs. CCF confirmed that the cat rescued in Tomioka Town was indeed one of her cats. Thus, one cat had returned. Another was caught in a cat trap cage near Mrs. CCF’s house. Unfortunately, she was able to rescue only two of her ten cats. The other eight are still missing. In October 2011, half a year after the earthquake, Mrs. CCF won by lottery temporary housing in Iwaki City in Fukushima Prefecture. (A lottery is used when there are many applicants for temporary housing and insufficient housing to accommodate them all.) Mrs. CCF, her mother, and four dogs moved to the temporary house. Her husband and her husband’s father moved into another building in the same temporary housing complex. Her daughter, the daughter’s husband, and her grandson moved into a rental apartment in Iwaki City. At the time of the interview, Mrs. CCF was living with her husband, her husband’s father, and several animals in a new house that they had built in Iwaki City. Two of the dogs died of illness after the earthquake, leaving her with the two remaining dogs. She was also looking after her daughter’s dog on weekdays. In addition to the two dogs, there were four cats, two of which had returned after the disaster and two of which had been adopted more recently (Fig. 6.2).

122

H. KAJIWARA

Fig. 6.2 Map of the complicated evacuation route: Case of Mrs. CCF (Made by the author from interview data)

6

6.1.2 6.1.2.1

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

123

Evacuating Without Companion Animals

Cases Where Owners Returned to Restricted Areas and Rescued Their Companion Animals

Mrs. IIF Mrs. IIF (age 58), a housewife, left her dog, Alice, and her cat, Chiro, when she evacuated from Naraha Town in Fukushima. She leashed the dog and opened the bathroom window so that the cat could go in and out. Mrs. IIF and her husband were at first housed in an elementary school gymnasium in Iwaki City, 35 km from their home. During this time, the husband secretly returned home by car early in the morning or at night and fed the pets as much food as was needed. On March 19, all the evacuees from Naraha Town were moved to Aizumisato Town, about 200 km from Naraha. As this was too far for Mr. IIF to drive, he could no longer return home in secret. As time passed, Mrs. IIF began to think that Alice and Chiro had died. However, on April 21, Mrs. IIF’s son (in his 20s) brought her her dog and cat by car. He had evacuated to another town for his work. The Japanese government had announced that, beginning on April 22, all entry into the radioactive contaminated areas would be strictly prohibited. Mrs. IIF’s son returned to their home in Naraha Town the day before the ban was set to be enforced and rescued the dog and cat. Upon seeing that Alice and Chiro were alive, Mrs. IIF began to cry. The pets, however, could not remain at the hotel shelter where the couple were staying. Over the next two months, Alice and Chiro lived separately with temporary foster guardians that the son had found, one in Fukushima and the other in Tokyo. Mrs. IIF subsequently moved to pet-friendly temporary housing in early July 2011, where she reunited with Alice and Chiro and was able to live together with them again. Mr. FFF/Mrs. FFF When Mr. FFF (age 79) and his wife, Mrs. FFF (age 79), evacuated from Naraha Town to an elementary school in Iwaki City, they brought four small dogs by car and left a cat behind in their locked house. Though officially not allowed, their daughter, who was working at the nuclear power plant, stopped on her way to work every day to feed the cat, Sorako. Even after all the residents were evacuated, nuclear power plant employees continued to commute through the evacuation areas. In June 2011, the Japanese government allowed some town residents to temporarily return home for several hours.

124

H. KAJIWARA

Mr. FFF hoped to bring Sorako back from his visit, but was told by an officer of Naraha Town that residents were not allowed to take animals out of the area. The town hall staff informed him that the animal control center would later collect the pets and take them to the shelter. At that time, Mr. FFF and his wife were staying in a hotel in Iwaki City, one of the refugee facilities for Naraha Town. The hotel owner was willing to allow pets, and Mr. FFF could not understand the reason his cat would be taken to an animal shelter despite the hotel owner’s acceptance. After he strongly protested to the staff at the town hall, one of the staff (who was clearly a lover of animals) secretly brought Sorako to Mr. FFF by her private car. Six months after the nuclear disaster, Mr. and Mrs. FFF and their daughter moved with all their pets to pet-friendly temporary housing. Mr. FFF has still not forgiven many at the town hall. When Naraha Town Hall decided to transfer 1000 residents to Aizumisato Town from the Iwaki Elementary School, the staff of the town government office recruited people to make the move and spoke to Mr. FFF, who had been staying with four dogs in his car. Mr. FFF : The staff asked me, why don’t you to go to Aizu? I said I have these many dogs, then the stupid staff said, you can leave them in the car. What if they die? She (the staff) said that you can buy another one! I got pissed off.

Mr. FFF refused to move with the group. He stayed in the car for three months until he found a second shelter where he could go with his companion animals. Mr. NF Mr. NF (age 30) is the son of a small restaurant owner in Katsurao Village in Fukushima. At night, on March 14, 2011, the mayor of Katsurao decided to evacuate the village. At 10:00 p.m., the residents began to move to Azuma Sports Park Gymnasium in Fukushima City. Mr. NF left his three cats in his house and departed with his family, his parents, grandfather, and a little brother, in two cars. On March 15, all villagers moved to an elementary school gymnasium in Aizubange Town, 100 km away from Mr. NF’s home. Mr. NF left the shelter secretly once a week in the middle of the night and drove home to feed the cats. The drive took three hours each way, as he had to travel along a mountain path. Mr.

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

125

NF left 5 kg of cat food in the house for his three pets. Despite having to be screened for radioactivity each time he returned to the shelter, he continued his feeding routine. When he returned home for the first time, he found only one cat, Snap, who was hiding in the corner of the room. Since then, the other two cats have been missing. Beginning in June 2011, some villagers returned to Katsurao Village to serve as guards during the day. In villages where no one remained, crimes such as theft occurred frequently. Mr. NF asked a member of the guards to feed his remaining cat, Snap. Snap stayed in the guard’s office during the day and was loved by the people there. Mr. NF sometimes went to see his cat. In July 2011, he moved into temporary housing where pets were allowed. At that time, Snap was still being taken care of by the guards in the village. However, an animal rescue volunteer group that went in and out the village took Snap without Mr. NF’s permission and released the cat in her original location after spaying. The operation was very sloppy and the Snap became sick. Following the laparotomy, even Snap’s intestine was sewn. Mr. NF took his cat to an animal hospital in Koriyama City. Fortunately, Snap’s life was not in danger. As Snap was getting old, Mr. NF thought it better to live with the cat than to leave her in the village, where wild boars, weasels, and foxes roam freely at night. In April 2013, he brought Snap to a temporary house. 6.1.2.2

Cases Where Owners Are Feeding Pets While Animals Are in the Area Under Evacuation Orders Mr. DF/Mrs. DF Mr. DF (age 79), a farmer, and his wife (age 77) had a large-breed female dog, Yuki, who was given to them by a neighbor in Katsurao Village. They had been living with their son, his wife, and two grandchildren. On March 14, 2011, the village chief of Katsurao Village ordered the evacuation of the entire village. To comply, they evacuated to the home of their daughter-in-law’s parents and then to the home of other relatives for approximately two weeks. They were unable to take Yuki with them. Since they felt they could not impose on their relatives over a long period, they moved on to Aizubange Town in Fukushima Prefecture, where the other village residents had been evacuated. Subsequently, they moved to a Japanese-style inn in Yanaizu Town under the direction of the village office. Their daughter-in-law went to their house in the evacuation area each day on her way to work and fed Yuki. Although there was no problem with Yuki’s being fed, Mr. and Mrs. DF sometimes

126

H. KAJIWARA

drove more than 100 km from Yanaizu to feed Yuki. Yuki understood that she would be left behind when it came time for the couple would leave the house, and each time she would chase the car over the one-anda-half-kilometer distance to the border of Tamura City. And each time, when she had spent all of her energy, she stopped, turned, and trudged back home. According to Mr. and Mrs. DF, some animal rescue volunteers also fed Yuki and other animals in the village, greatly helping both the animals and the people. In May 2011, two months after the nuclear disaster, when Mr. DF went to the village, he was surprised to see that Yuki had given birth to eight puppies. He left four of the puppies and threw the other four into the river before their eyes had opened. Mr. DF gave two of the puppies to his friends, leaving Yuki with two of her male puppies. Mr. DF pulled a long wire taut in the yard of the house and put Yuki on a leash, believing that it would be trouble if the mother dog would go somewhere after the puppies were born. In July 2011, DF and his wife moved into temporary housing where they were allowed to keep pets. However, they chose not to bring their dogs, as it was impossible to live with three large dogs in the small temporary home. Their son, his wife, and grandchildren lived in other places. Mr. DF and his wife made the one-hour trip to their own house in Katsurao Village every day to feed the dogs. Since March 2014, however, they traveled to the village only every other day due the weakening physical condition of Mr. DF. If the evacuation order is lifted, the couple intends to return home for their three dogs. However, they feel anxious about whether they can live on land where crops cannot be grown due to radioactive contamination (Photo 6.2). Mr. UF Iitate Village farmer UF (age 76) did not evacuate when the villagers began the evacuation in May. He had two cattle that he needed to look after. Tora, a large male dog who was born from a stray dog, remained with Mr. UF as a guard dog, protecting the house and cattle from wild boars. At the end of July, after Mr. UF had sold the cattle at auction, he joined a hot spring accommodation that served as one of the shelters in Iizaka Town in Fukushima City, 40 km from Iitate Village. He returned home from the refuge accommodation once every few days to feed Tora. In August 2011, Mr. UF moved into temporary housing where pets were not allowed. At that time, various animal volunteer groups were conducting activities on the ground in Iitate Village. Mr. UF was told by

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

127

Photo 6.2 A dog that has been leashed in an evacuation zone ever since the nuclear disaster occurred (Source Author’s fieldwork on September 14, 2013)

one, “We will feed the dogs, so you don’t need to worry.” Nevertheless, Mr. UF continued to feed Tora once every two or three days, driving approximately 40 minutes from his temporary home to the village to look after the dog and maintain his house and land. 6.1.2.3

Cases Where the Owners just Left Their Animals Behind and Neglected Them Mr. ZF/Mrs. ZF When Mr. ZF (age 55) and Mrs. ZF (age 54) evacuated from Tomioka Town in Fukushima Prefecture, they left behind a mixed breed, mediumsized male dog, Hachi, on a leash in a doghouse in the garden. Mrs. ZF : I thought I wouldn’t see him again and hoped he would die here, in his house. In the end, when we heard that Tomioka Town would be blocked off, we returned home before this happened.

128

H. KAJIWARA

They returned home for several hours on April 21, 2011, the day before the Japanese government planned to close the road leading to Tomioka Town. Although they had expected that Hachi would be dead, he had survived. They gave Hachi plenty of dog food and water and left the house while he was eating. Their house was just 10 km from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, so it was not possible to enter the area after the road closure. Mr. ZF was an employee assigned to the nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture and lived there by himself, some 300 km from his family. Two days after the earthquake, Mr. ZF had to return to Niigata without his wife. Mrs. ZF became sick while staying with her relatives in the gymnasium in Miharu Town, 70 km from home. Although his Niigata employee dormitory was only for singles, Mr. ZF asked that the company allow his wife to join him there. Recognizing the emergency nature of all that was happening, the company agreed to let the couple live together in the dormitory. In the summer of 2011, the Japanese government allowed the residents of Tomioka Town to return home for several hours. When Mr. ZF and his wife arrived home, the dog house was empty. Nevertheless, there were indications that someone had been giving Hachi food and water. The couple began looking for their dog. They described Hachi’s features to the people at the animal control center. On one occasion, they went to a public animal shelter in Miharu Town in Fukushima to look for Hachi but were unable to find him. In the spring of 2012, the animal control center contacted the couple, telling them that the center had captured a dog matching Hachi’s description. A staff member at the center told them over the phone to come pick up their dog, noting that the center would euthanize the dog after a period of time. However, due to housing conditions, the couple could not pick up Hachi immediately. The center agreed to keep Hachi for a while longer. In June 2012, Mrs. ZF moved alone to a pet-friendly temporary housing facility in Koriyama City in Fukushima and went to pick up Hachi in July. Hachi wept and howled at their reunion after being separated for a year and three months. In 2015, Hachi died in the temporary housing due to illness. Mrs. ZF had taken care of him in every way she could. Mrs. EEF Mrs. EEF (age 47) lived in Tomioka Town and was unable to contact her husband, who was working at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant after the earthquake. On March 12, she evacuated her husband’s parents

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

129

by bus. The next day, after loading clothes and other belongings into her car, she and her son joined her husband’s parents in the gymnasium in Miharu Town’s Tamura High School. Panic stricken, she left behind her Shiba dog, Chibi, who was leashed in the garden. Mrs. EEF was still unable to contact her husband and went to her parents’ house in Iwaki City in Fukushima with her parents-in-law and son on March 14. On March 15, she received an e-mail from her husband, who was working on power restoration at the Fukushima No. 1 plant. The e-mail read, “Feel like we’ve already failed.” She was very worried about her husband, but after more than three days, he returned home safely. He went to their home in Tomioka Town to collect their valuables, fed Chibi and released the dog from his leash. As Mrs. EEF’s parents’ house in Iwaki City was in an area crowded with houses, she could not bring the dog. Her husband returned home several times to feed Chibi, until Tomioka was locked down as a hazard area on April 22, 2011. Despite being released from his leash, Chibi had gone nowhere and was in his kennel. However, when Mrs. EEF was finally allowed to go home in the summer, her dog was no longer there. She looked for Chibi in some of the animal shelters and searched on the Internet but was unable to find the dog. Chibi remains missing. Mr. KKF Mr. KKF (age 76), who had run an architectural company in Tokyo, retired in 2000 and built his home in Okuma Town in Fukushima Prefecture. It was his hometown. He grew vegetables in the field, made soba (buckwheat vermicelli) and enjoyed living in the countryside with his wife. On March 11, 2011, when the earthquake occurred, his white female cat, Nene, who lived indoors, ran from the house. Even though Mr. KKF called Nene’s name again and again, the cat did not come back. When the Okuma town office began evacuating residents, Mr. KKF believed that the evacuation would last no more than a day or two, so he put out a large portion of cat food for Nene and boarded the bus without luggage. He was wearing sandals and had only his cell phone and his wallet. While at first believing it was merely an evacuation drill, he was moved to the Tamura City gymnasium and was unable to go home. A relative of one of his neighbors came by car from Saitama Prefecture to pick them up, and he and his wife left with the group. The couple finally reached their daughter in Tokyo with nothing but their clothes. Mr. KKF ‘s car had had a flat tire in front of a drug store on the day of the earthquake, and

130

H. KAJIWARA

he simply left it there. Thus, he had no independent means of transportation. It was only after a year that he was able to return to his home in Okuma. Although Mr. KKF hoped his cat had survived on her own, he found Nene, who had starved to death, in a Kotatsu (a Japanese foot warmer shaped like a desk) inside the house. 6.1.3

Resisting Evacuation

6.1.3.1 Cases Where the Owners Challenged the Evacuation Order Mr. CF Mr. CF (age 60) lived in Katsurao Village in Fukushima. He had three cows and four mixed breed, middle-sized dogs. He was also a parttime village employee. On the night of March 14, 2011, he heard the evacuation order issued to all village residents through the village government emergency broadcast system. Mr. CF departed by car with his wife, mother, and aunt. They could not go to the Azuma Sports Park in Fukushima City, the refugee center for Katsurao Village, as his car had nearly run out of gas. (As mentioned, the park was 65 km from the village.) Instead, he and his family stayed for a week at his son’s house in Koriyama City, which was a little closer to Katsurao Village. By the third or fourth day after the evacuation, Mr. CF had all but given up on his cattle. However, his dogs had not been tethered, and he thought they might still be alive. Mr. CF decided to return to the village for the animals. On his way home with his family, he refueled at a gas station very close to the village. Gasoline was extremely scarce. People were allowed only five or ten liters at a time. At the gas station, Mr. CF encountered a search party that was out looking for residents left behind in the village. Mr. CF was told that he could not enter the village. When he asked one of the many policemen in the group to look for his dogs after searching for residents, he was told, “We can’t search for animals.” Mr. CF and his family were not only unable to enter the village; they were taken by the police to Aizubange Town in Fukushima Prefecture, more than 100 km from their village. Aizubange Town was wholly unfamiliar to the family. For his older mother and aunt, shelter life proved too hard. Sympathetic to the situation, the village office agreed to his request to move his family to a welfare facility in Yanaizu Town. In April, Mr. CF felt that he had to return to the village by any means for the sake of his animals.

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

131

CF : I fought on the way to the village. We really shouldn’t enter the village. But I went into it anyway. I fought with the Self-Defense Forces and the police and broke through the barricade. I told them, “You can’t understand my feeling!” I broke through by force. The police told me, “We will arrest you!”

After breaking through the gate of the regulatory line and returning to his house in the village, Mr. CF found the dogs emaciated and the cattle dead of starvation. Of the four dogs, one (who had a lame leg) was missing. After learning that Mr. CF had broken through the regulatory line, other villagers followed. Eventually, the villagers were allowed to reenter the village on the condition that they carry dosimeters and would agree to being screened for radioactivity when they left. Mr. CF desperately wanted to rescue his dogs. However, he was one of the managers at the shelter and had an elderly mother and aunt, which limited his ability to travel the substantial distance back to his village. Moreover, catching his dogs wouldn’t be easy. Dogs who had been left behind tended to run from humans because of the fear they felt in this stressful situation. At this time, an animal rescue volunteer who had come from Kumamoto Prefecture (in Kyushu, the southern island of Japan) visited Mr. CF at the shelter. She promised not only to feed the dogs in Katsurao Village but also to rescue and temporarily keep as many of them as she could. Mr. CF gave her his mobile number and a copy of his disaster certificate, a document certifying that he was a disaster victim. Such a certificate was required when people entered areas that had been subject to an evacuation order. Mr. CF also introduced the woman’s volunteer group to various people from the village to make it easier for her to work there. It took time, but his three dogs were eventually protected by the animal rescue group and held by them for a short while. On the occasion of moving into temporary housing, Mr. CF consulted with the village office, telling them that he wanted to live with his dogs. However, he was informed that there was no place available to keep them. When Mr. CF told the village housing officer that he would make a kennel on his own, he was instructed to refrain from doing so. However, the president of the neighborhood association of the temporary housing complex was also a dog owner. He initiated negotiations with the village office, but found it difficult to obtain the necessary permission because the village office believed that pets would be a nuisance to the neighborhood. After extensive negotiations, the residents enclosed a space large enough for two cars at the end of the parking lot and were allowed to

132

H. KAJIWARA

keep their dogs there. Although the small space could not be said to provide a good environment for up to 13 dogs, the guardians, including Mr. CF, were able to bring their dogs. Mr. CF later borrowed land from a landowner whom he had met while walking his dogs and worked with other owners to build a dog yard adjacent to the parking lot of the temporary housing. Currently, the dogs each have their own space where they can soak in the sunlight. Mr. CF spends much of his time with his dogs in the dog yard every day, talking and playing with them and grateful for their return (Fig. 6.3). 6.1.3.2

Case Where the Owner Is Living in an Evacuation Area Covertly

Mrs. VF Mrs. VF (age 76) lived in Iitate village in Fukushima Prefecture and had farmed there for many years. In May 2011, when the villagers began the evacuation, she was looking for a rental house to live in with her two large-breed male dogs. However, such a house was hard to find. She was urged to evacuate promptly by the district head and reluctantly evacuated with her husband and son to an apartment in Kawamata, a neighboring town. Although she was unable to take her dogs, Shiro and Pochi, her son fed them on his way to work every day. Moreover, their apartment was just 15 km from the house, so Mr. and Mrs. VF found it easy to return to see the dogs. However, the apartment was on the third floor of a building that had no elevator. When Mrs. VF hurt her knees climbing the stairs, the couple had to move to a one-story temporary house. Mrs. VF was hoping to move to temporary housing as close to Iitate Village and her dogs as possible. However, in August 2011, she was assigned to temporary housing that was a one-hour drive from the village. Pets were not allowed. Her son was working near Iitate Village and continued to stop by their house every day to tend to the dogs. However, Mrs. VF was now only able to visit Shiro and Pochi once a month. In January 2012, Shiro was suffering from heart disease and needed daily medication. Shiro was strongly attached to Mrs. VF and cried constantly looking for her. Mrs. VF decided to return to the village secretly to take care of Shiro while pretending to live in a temporary house. Her house was in a restricted residence area. As the radiation dose in this area was 20–50 millisieverts per year, the government did not permit residents to stay overnight, but allowed them to go home during the day. Thus, the village was completely unattended at night. Nevertheless, Mrs. VF never felt fearful because the dogs were with her.

6

MAKING CHOICES REGARDING COMPANION ANIMALS

133

Fig. 6.3 Map of the complicated evacuation routes: Case of Mr. CF (Made by the author from interview data)

134

H. KAJIWARA

There was only one problem: Pochi was very friendly to everyone. As a result, he was taken three times by volunteers who did not know that Mrs. VF was the dog’s guardian. Each time, Mrs. VF asked a volunteer who was familiar with her situation to search for Pochi on the Internet, and Pochi was found all three times. Mrs. VF nursed Shiro for more than a year while living in the uninhabited village. In August 2013, Shiro passed away in his familiar home, attended by Mrs. VF. At the time of the interview, Mrs. VF was still living with Pochi in the village, where residence remained restricted. The guards and the police who patrol the area deliberately overlook her violation of the order.

References Literature in Japanese Fukushima, P. (2015). “Saigai-ji ni okeru dobutsu (petto) no kyugo taisaku manyuaru” no minaoshi ni tsuite [Regarding revision of “Animals (Pets) Rescue Manual in Disasters] [Pdf file]. Retrieved December 9, 2016, from http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/103905.pdf. Funabashi, Y. (2016). Kauntodaun merutodaun [Countdown meltdown]. Bunshun bunko [Bunshun paperback: Revision of the book 2012 Bungei Shunju] Tokyo: Bungeishunju. Katsurao Village. (2015). Katsurao-mura Higashinihon daishinsai kiroku-shi: Genshiryokuhatsudenshojiko ni yoru zenson hinan no kiroku “Dai 1-sh¯o zen son hinan no dokyumento” [Katsurao Village Great East Japan Earthquake journal: Record of the village-wide evacuation due to nuclear power plant accident “Chapter 1 Documentary of the village-wide evacuation”] [Pdf file]. Retrieved December 9, 2016, from https://www.katsurao.org/uploaded/att achment/1166.pdf. Kawamata, J. (2014). Shinsai Oyobi Genpatsu Jiko Niyoru Fukushima Ken Juishi-kai de no Taio [Response of the Fukushima Veterinary Medical Association during an earthquake disaster and nuclear plant accident]. Chikusan no Kenkyu [Sustainable Livestock Production and Human Welfare], 68(1), 83–91. Morisawa, M. (2014). Fukushimaken dobutsu kyugo honbu no katsudo gaiyo to kongo no kadai [Fukushima animal rescue headquarters activity overview and future challenges]. Chikusan no Kenkyu [Sustainable Livestock Production and Human Welfare], 68(1), 71–74. National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission [Kokkai jikocho Tokyodenryoku Fukushima genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko chosa iinkai hokokusho]. (2012). Hokoku-sho [Report]. [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from http://www.mhmjapan.com/ content/files/00001736/naiic_honpen2_0.pdf.

CHAPTER 7

Complexities in Fukushima

7.1

Complexities in Fukushima

At the survey in Fukushima, a quantitative study was used to reinforce the data from the qualitative study. A questionnaire consisting of 26 questions was administered to 74 guardians (39 males, 35 females) in the Fukushima evacuation area. The survey items included details regarding the owner-companion animal circumstances prior to the disaster, their behavior during the evacuation, and their current status. All questionnaires were administered by the author using the interview survey method. This chapter describes the behavior of the Fukushima owners, providing qualitative data and survey results reported in the form of descriptive statistics. Chapter 6 provided a framework for reviewing the various behaviors of owners who evacuated in the nuclear disaster. The principal categories were: (1) evacuating with companion animals, (2) evacuating without companion animals, and (3) resisting evacuation. However, applying this classification scheme was difficult, since guardian behavior changed at a dizzying pace over time, forcing the creation of multiple sub-categories. For example, some pet owners evacuated with their pet, then brought the animal back to the evacuation order zone. Some left their animals behind and went back later to rescue them. Others initially set their animals free, then later began to search for them. The framework described in Chapter 6 was as follows: © The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_7

135

136

H. KAJIWARA

1. Evacuating with companion animals – Cases where the owners evacuated with their companion animals and are currently living together with the animals. – Cases where the owners evacuated with their companion animals and are currently living separately from the animals. – Cases where the owners evacuated with some companion animals and left others behind. 2. Evacuating without companion animals – Cases where the owners went into the restricted area and rescued their companion animals. – Cases where the owners went into the restricted areas to feed their companion animals. – Cases where the owners abandoned their companion animals. 3. Resisting evacuation – Cases of standing against the evacuation order. – Case of living in an evacuation area covertly. Guardians in the tsunami disaster area followed one or more of three main courses: confronting the system, making alternative arrangements, or returning to a residence that had been destroyed. In addition, some owners who lost their pets chose to suffer in silence. The owners who evacuated with their companion animals had a difficult time during the evacuation; however, at the time of the interview, many were living in pet-friendly temporary housing, and their lives with their animals had already begun to return to normal. It can be said that they were in the process of getting their lives back. In comparison, the behavior of the owners in Fukushima was much more complex in terms of evacuation routes, the movement of family members, and the treatment of the animals. Furthermore, the guardians in Fukushima were dealing with a great deal of uncertainty, not knowing what would happen to their lives in the future. In Fukushima, the author found it difficult to keep up with the stories of the interviewees during her interviews, finding it necessary to insert arrows in her interview notebook and frequently checking the movement of the interviewees evacuation life. Why were the evacuation behaviors of the victims in the two phases of the disaster so different? The

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

137

evacuations of , , and described in the previous chapter gave some insight into the complexities faced by those who evacuated from the areas around the plant. Their cases are not special. In areas where the tsunami disaster occurred, people often evacuated based on an instantaneous judgment. Conversely, in the nuclear disaster area, many began their evacuation only after gathering together their family/relatives. Many younger households with children moved out of Fukushima Prefecture considering the effects of radioactivity, leaving mostly older households in the area. Moreover, elderly people needing nursing care required a place where they could receive care away from the confusion, which meant, for example, that they would need to be transferred to the homes of relatives outside Fukushima Prefecture. In addition, some had physical constraints. A number of people evacuated, not in their own cars, but in buses arranged by the government. Some of those with cars could not get gasoline. Others could not use the highway because the roads had been badly damaged. Most of evacuees in Fukushima had lived in the mountain villages for many years and many had not traveled extensively. Even those with no physical constraints found it difficult to suddenly move to an unknown area 100 kilometers from home or to drive through a big city such as Koriyama. Why did you not bring your companion animals? Why did you not go to rescue your pets? Why are you still keeping your animals in the contaminated area? It is easy to ask these questions now that we have a complete picture of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. However, the many and varied experiences of the owners show that the answers to these questions are highly complex.

7.2 Essential Matters When Nuclear Power Disasters Occur Regarding the evacuation of guardians and their companion animals in a disaster, it is the dominant stance of the evacuation planning actors, including the Ministry of the Environment, that individual owners have the obligation to make proper disaster preparation plans and adopt responsible pet-keeping methods. This is certainly necessary. However, do so-called good owners who have a strong attachment to their pets always have been ability to evacuate with their pets? This was not the case in the 2011 nuclear disaster evacuation. Not a few guardians who had

138

H. KAJIWARA

left their pets behind returned to the restricted area soon after the accident out of concern for their companion animals, caring little about their own radiation exposure. Some returned to their homes to feed their pets every day for over six years, many traveling an hour or more each way. Indeed, Yamazaki (2015) concluded that there was no significant association between an owner’s attachment to his/her pets and the owner’s evacuation behavior. Whether the owners evacuated with their companion animals or left them behind was related to many factors, including the availability of a private car, the number of animals, the owner’s personality, social capital, etc. Simply focusing on owner attachment and disaster preparedness overlooks perhaps the most significant factor, the social framework of the nuclear disaster. It is possible to interpret the complexity of owner behavior as an essential issue in a nuclear disaster rather than reducing the actions of owners to “self-responsibility” alone. 7.2.1

The Lack of Information and the Safety Myths

When guardians consider evacuating with their pets, the amount of available information undoubtedly affects their choices. In the initial stage following the explosion at Fukushima No. 1, the lack of information and the safety myths of the nuclear power plant had a major impact on owner behavior. In Fukushima, people were told to listen to disaster news on the radio; many heard of the disaster through the grapevine and left their home with the expectation that they would be gone for a short period or left “just in case.” Most did not understand the magnitude of the nuclear power plant accident and did not doubt that they could return in a day or two. At that time, neither the Japanese government nor the Fukushima prefectural office knew exactly how much damage had or would be done. However, if the Japanese government had not hidden the seriousness of the situation, it is certain that more companion animals would have been evacuated with their guardians. In March 2011, after the explosion at the power plant, Yukio Edano, who was the Chief Cabinet Secretary at that time, repeatedly insisted on TV that “This evacuation is for ‘just in case,’” and “There is no immediate health danger” (National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission [Kokkai jikocho Tokyodenryoku Fukushima genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko chosa iinkai] 2012: 616).

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

139

Along with the lack of reliable information, safety myths regarding nuclear power plants that had long been promulgated were an impediment to the residents’ preparations for a nuclear evacuation. Mr. CF (age 60), who broke through the barricade and returned to Katsurao Village for his dogs and negotiated with the village government office to be allowed to live with his animals in temporary housing, spoke of his lack of awareness of the evacuation process before the nuclear disaster: ※ Have you ever imagined running away from a nuclear disaster? CF : Never. The reason was that they (Tokyo Electric Power Company) said the nuclear power plants are absolutely safe and secure. No one had ever imagined that the nuclear power plant would be destroyed by such a thing. It’s dreadful because it’s an explosion. We always heard about safety and security talk in the village and went often to the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant for a study course. We never thought that a thick concrete wall like that would break. But that exploded. So, I was not prepared at all. Really not.

There are two nuclear power plants in Fukushima, Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) and Fukushima No. 2 (Daini), separated by 10 kilometers. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) frequently took members of the local neighborhood governments by bus on “study tours” to Fukushima No. 1 and No. 2. Residents toured the inside of the plants and were reminded repeatedly “how safe the nuclear power plant was,” until it was deeply embedded in their consciousness. The tours were usually free of charge. Generally, the tours included some fun—nice meals, karaoke, or excursions to hot springs. In the areas around the nuclear power plant, TEPCO and the local governments worked with a major advertising company to promote propaganda concerning the safety of the plant. For example, in Futaba Town in Fukushima, an arch-shaped sign with a slogan chosen by the townspeople was hanging above the road in the center of the town proclaiming that “Nuclear is a bright future energy,” or “Enriched life with correct understanding of nuclear energy.” Mr. and Mrs. JF (age 70 and 66, respectively), who had returned their dog, Lara, from their temporary housing back to their home in Katsura

140

H. KAJIWARA

Village in the evacuation area (where Mr. JF fed their dog daily), talked about their awareness of the nuclear power plant and the benefits that the nuclear power plant brought to the local community: Mrs. JF : TEPCO made nice roads for our village. Mr. JF : For example, when making a road, the village applied to TEPCO for money, calling it “an evacuation road,” because there was such a grant. So, the nuclear power plant was not bad for Katsurao Village. But I didn’t think about the danger, not at all.

The benefits of nuclear power had permeated daily life; it was not only the infrastructure improvements, such as the new roads. Mrs. XF (age 67), who moved to Tomioka Town when her husband was transferred to the Fukushima No. 1 power plant, was initially surprised and disgusted by the customs of the town: XF : At first, I was really against it. The manager of the town hall has great benefits from TEPCO. The Kacho (middle management in the local administration) of the town hall had great benefits from TEPCO. The town provided various inhabitants services. There were gatherings once a month and travel twice a year. We paid only about 5,000 yen (US$ 47) for the overnight trips. The remaining amount was paid by TEPCO. The manager received money from TEPCO as a matter of course.

While Mrs. XF felt uncomfortable receiving nuclear money, she never had doubts about the plant’s safety. The results of the questionnaire survey also reveal the lack of information and the promotion of the myth that nuclear power was safe. Of the 74 respondents, 45 had left all or some of their companion animals behind. The most common reason given was, “I thought I didn’t need to evacuate with the animals because I was planning to go home in one or two days.” The previously mentioned Mr. KKF (age 76), who evacuated without his indoor cat, Nene, and who could not return home for a full year, was aware of the problem at the plant but at first thought the evacuation was simply a drill. On the other hand, there were people who knew promptly of the power plant accident because a family member, a relative, a friend, or an acquaintance worked at No. 1. One of the questionnaire survey respondents said that her husband’s junior was working at the plant on the

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

141

evening of March 11. Her husband was informed that he should leave immediately because of the danger. They left Fukushima Prefecture that night with five family members and seven dogs. Paradoxically, in some cases, awareness of the seriousness of the nuclear accident was precisely why some residents left their animals behind. Mrs. IIF (age 58) evacuated without her dog or cat. When she and her husband and mother-in-law were caught in a traffic jam as they sought to leave, she was already half-prepared for death: IIF : Maybe we are messed up, something like that. No matter where we ran away, since we are exposed to radiation, we are done. Nevertheless, for the time being, we got in the car and ran away. If it is not a serious accident, we would probably be able to go home in one or two days. I felt like there was no way; I just had to leave the dog and cat for the time being. I acted this way confronted by death as if I had accepted it in one half of my mind.

Most people were conditioned to believe the nuclear power safety myth that the national government, TEPCO, and the local governments had together created and promulgated over the years. On the other hand, a relatively few were able to get information on severe accidents from insiders. Regardless of the presence or absence of information, however, there were differences in the perceptions of individuals regarding nuclear power and nuclear disasters. There was also a major difference in the amount of accident information that was available at the time of the accident and people’s assessment of the information. Many left their animals behind because they believed they would soon be able to return. Moreover, even in cases where people took the accident extremely seriously, they did not always take their animals with them in the evacuation. Mrs. If, for example, who believed that she could not possibly be saved wherever she and her husband might run, understandably thought it meaningless to evacuate with her animals, since everyone—humans and animals—was destined to die. 7.2.2

The Uncertainty of Reconstructing One’s Life

The uncertainty of reconstructing their lives after the disaster is also an essential issue to be considered when interpreting the complexity of guardian behavior. Unlike those who lose their homes due to natural

142

H. KAJIWARA

disasters, the homes of the victims of a nuclear disaster generally remain in place. In this case, when or whether they might ever be able to return home largely depends on elements far beyond their control, including the policies of the Japanese or Fukushima Prefectural governments, the effectiveness of decontamination measures, and the way in which the decommissioning process proceeds. Even if the evacuees were to return to their homes, it is uncertain whether they could continue to live there. Moreover, the nature of life in the villages would greatly depend on how many residents returned. Mr. NF (age 30 and the owner of Snap, his cat), who owned a restaurant in Katsurao Village, now runs a temporary restaurant in a temporary housing complex in Miharu Town in Fukushima. He talked about his future: NF : Our village is roughly divided into three parts: where the radiation dose is very high, where the radiation dose is low and a midpoint. So, it’s a bit complicated. If everyone couldn’t go home, I think it was easy to think, for example, about building a temporary village elsewhere. The current idea of the village office is that among the residents, the people who can return to the village will return and rebuild their lives. Those who cannot return to the village will live here [in Miharu Town], in the new disaster recovery public housing. The elderly people want to go back to the village. Some people say they decided to go home. But I don’t know if I go back to where there are few residents and can run a restaurant and live. However, we don’t know how long TEPCO will pay compensation. Perhaps the compensation will be discontinued if the residents return to the village.

As Mr. NF suggests, if the villagers are unable or unwilling to go home, it would be necessary to start over in another place. If only a few elderly people return to the village, how will their lives be re-established? In April 2017, the evacuation order was canceled for approximately 32,000 people in the ordered evacuated areas such as Iitate Village and Katsurao Village. However, to date, only 13.5% of the population has returned (Asahi Shimbun Digital, March 6, 2017). The Japanese government has categorized the evacuation order zones into the following three areas, according to radiation dose: difficult-to-return zone (over 50 Sieverts per year), restricted residence area (over 20 Sieverts to 50 Sieverts or per year), and zone in preparation for the lifting of the evacuation order (20 Sieverts or less per year). Notably, there is a substantial difference in

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

143

compensation from TEPCO for victims in the three designated areas. In the difficult-to-return zone, the compensation for residents is high. Many of the owners who have given up on returning or who have decided not to return for the time being have purchased or built new homes where they can live with their pets. Those from areas with low compensation need to remain in their temporary housing until pet-friendly public housing can be built1 (Photo 7.1). Even though most people had evacuated in the same way, the compensation gap is huge, depending on the classification of the area in which the evacuee’s house is located. For those who lived in a house outside the evacuation area but evacuated out of concern for their infants, children, or pets—so-called voluntary evacuees [Jishu hinan sha]—housing support was discontinued altogether in March 2017, creating great difficulties.

Photo 7.1 Massive numbers of radioactive waste one ton bags have been piling up everywhere, the situation has not changed even in 2020 (Source Author’s fieldwork on July 29, 2015 [upper panel]; May 18, 2016 [bottom panel])

144

H. KAJIWARA

As Hitomi Sato noted in Chapter 5, many families have become divided over the compensation. There are many cases in which brothers and sisters have severed their relationship. Thus, even if the evacuees are able to leave their temporary housing to live in a new home, their devastating evacuation experiences are almost certainly going to live on forever in their hearts. People’s broken relationships and their normal daily lives simply cannot be restored. 7.2.3

The Uncertainty of “Scientific” Discourse on Radioactivity

The uncertainty of the “scientific” discourse on radioactivity also affects guardian behavior. What is the safety standard for the level of radioactive contamination? In Fukushima, residents can return to the area if the radioactive contamination is 20 millisieverts per year or less per year. However, in other parts of Japan, safety standards require 1 millisievert per year or less. Such a double standard regarding safety makes it impossible for the Japanese people to know what levels of this invisible killer are truly safe and what levels are truly dangerous. The pronouncements of the Japanese government and the views of nongovernment anti-nuclear groups are often in opposition. Sadly, an easy-to-understand and kind explanation has never been given to elderly evacuees. A former farmer, Mr. UF (age 76), who has kept his large-breed dog, Tora, at his home in Iitate village and goes often to feed him, answered a question about radioactivity as follows: ※ Are you not afraid of radioactivity? UF : I never thought. From the beginning I was not scared of radioactivity or something. But you know, everyone says scared, scared, so I don’t eat many things from Iitate Village.

Mrs. VF (age 76), who lives in a restricted residence area in Iitate Village with her dog, has a complex feeling about radiation. Although the Japanese government has already decontaminated the area where she lives, the radiation dose is still high. She wears a mask when she walks her dog every day. VF : If radioactivity is colored, you can avoid it, but it’s scary because you can’t see the radioactivity. I always gathered wild plants and

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

145

mushrooms in the mountains from spring to autumn. I made pickles with them in two large pickle barrels, as preserved food. And my family has been eating nature’s bounty throughout the years. But now I can’t eat them no matter how many wild plants are in the mountains. I have to buy all the food. Everything has become the same life as in the city…

As described above, the complexity of the behavior of Fukushima pet owners is not something that can be explained simply in terms everyday disaster preparedness or the owner’s level of attachment to his or her animals, but rather it is the product of many essential issues associated with nuclear disasters. However, these issues did not appear suddenly when a disaster occurred, but were contained within the structure of the nuclear power generation business promoted by the Japanese government, TEPCO, local governments, and the residents themselves prior to March 11, 2011. They had already existed. Furthermore, we who are living in the city, consuming electricity, and indifferent to the nature of a nuclear power plant are also not unrelated. In 1955, the Basic Law for Nuclear Energy was enacted to promote research and development and utilization of nuclear power in Japan. Since then, the nuclear power generation has been a national project promoted by the Japanese government, political circles, bureaucrats, academics, and the economics communities. Since the 1950s, the Japanese government and the electric power industry have controlled the overall tone of the mass media mainly through Dentsu, a major advertising agency, by continuing to spend huge amounts of money on advertising. Honma states that this was “nationally incited propaganda that was unparalleled in the world” (Honma 2016: ii). The dynamics promoting nuclear power have remained unchanged since the Fukushima No.1 accident. Nine nuclear power plants have already been restarted in West Japan. Six additional units, including the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Niigata Prefecture, have been given permission to restart, and twelve more are under review for restarting (The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, n.d.) The nuclear power generation business will bring great benefits to the local communities where there had been no prior industry. As a result, nearly all area residents will be somehow connected to the nuclear industry, either working at the plant themselves or having family members or relatives working there. In that sense, when an accident occurs, those

146

H. KAJIWARA

living in the area near the plant are, at the same time, both victims of the disaster and (at least indirectly) responsible for it. However, the benefits to residents living beyond the immediate vicinity are far less. In addition, compensation after an accident, as we have seen, varies greatly from region to region, which intensely divides area residents. Moreover, the term “scientific” in relation to nuclear power is very biased in Japan, as nuclear power generation is a national project and it is presupposed that it will proceed no matter what happens. To illustrate, Professor Shunichi Yamashita of Nagasaki University took the position of radiation health risk management advisor on March 19, 2011, at the request of Yuhei Sato, governor of Fukushima Prefecture. His is a part-time position and he serves as vice president of Fukushima Medical University. He should be an expert in exposure medical care. However, his remarks at a lecture in Fukushima City on March 21, 2011 gave rise to public censure. “The effects of radiation do not actually reach those who are smiling, the radiation comes to those who are dwelling on the radiation,” he told a Fukushima audience approximately one week after the nuclear accident (sievert311 2011; see also Citizen Scientist International Conference Executive Committee and “Science” editorial department [Shimin kagaku-sha kokusai kaigi jikkoiinkai‘kagaku’ henshu-bu] 2014: 348). Alarmingly, the amount of spatial radiation, which should be objective data, differs between the measurements reported by the Ministry of the Environment and local governments and the residents’ own measurements. Beginning in June 2011, the Fukushima prefectural government commissioned the Fukushima Medical University to conduct health surveys for its citizens (Fukushima International Medical Science Center Radiological Health Management of Citizens of the prefecture Center [Fukushima kokusai iryo kagaku senta hoshasen igaku kenmin kenko kanri senta], n.d.). In March 2017, NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai [Japan Broadcasting Corporation]) reported the following. Thyroid cancer tests for 380,000 children in Fukushima who were 18 years of age or younger at the time of the nuclear accident were conducted. There were children who required follow-up observation after the examination. However, patients who developed cancer after the follow-up observation were not included in the data reported to the technical committee (nomorefukushima2011 2017). Mainichi Shimbun reporter Kosuke Hino has since pointed out that this thyroid cancer test

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

147

was originally designed to reveal as little damage as possible (Hino 2017: 41–45). Many in Japan now wonder, What kind of practice is science? As mentioned above, in April 2017, the Japanese government lifted the evacuation order in Fukushima Prefecture, except in the difficultto-return zone, while expressing the view that exposure doses of 20 millisieverts or less per year would not endanger human health. As a result, the evacuation order zone has been reduced to just 30% of its maximum area, as shown in Fig. 7.1 (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 2017). However, the radiation dose standard that is being used to determine the return of residents was established without a clear basis. Five years after the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986, Ukraine passed the “Ukrainian National Law Concerning the Legal System of the Territory Contaminated with Radioactive Materials Due to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Accident” (commonly known as the Chernobyl Law). The Chernobyl Law declares that areas where the annual radiation dose exceeds 5 millisieverts are considered “unconditional (forced) resettlement areas.” The law also stipulates that areas exceeding 1 millisievert per year are “guaranteed voluntary migration areas.” Residents in these areas are granted the right to move (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic Supreme Conference Public Relations 1991: 162). The Fukushima No. 1 nuclear disaster is still ongoing. Everyday, 150 to 200 tons of groundwater flows into the basement of the reactor buildings. A large amount of high-concentration radioactive sources are still there, consequently contaminate the groundwater. The Japanese government has been pumping out this radioactive water every day and storing it on-site (Fukushima Prefecture: Fukushima Revitalization Station, n.d.). The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) recently announced that the holding tank for the water will be full by the summer of 2022 (Kon 2019), and the Japanese government is now discussing releasing the contaminated water into the sea. No one knows exactly when the decommissioning of the reactor in Fukushima No.1 will end or how much it will cost. Since the radioactivity in the reactors remains extremely high, it is difficult to know, at this stage, the current status inside. Outside, the refugees are suspended in an uncertain situation regarding what is right or what will happen in the future. Moreover, owners with companion animals continue to have options in choosing suitable temporary housing that are far narrower than

148

H. KAJIWARA

Fig. 7.1 Conceptual diagram of evacuation instruction area as of April 1, fiscal year 2017 (Created by the author based on the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry 2017)

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

149

those of non-owners. It is also much more difficult for these guardians to move to public housing. Thus, the guardians in Fukushima are trapped in the deepening divisions among the victims.

7.3 A Rural Philosophy for the Happiness of Companion Animals In September 2013, after the investigation of the evacuation order areas in Fukushima had begun, I accompanied volunteers who were feeding the companion animals left behind in Katsurao Village. As we entered the premises of one of the houses, the resident dog, who had been leashed, was so gleeful that he jumped in the air, causing his collar to pull tightly around his neck. At another house, two large dogs that had been set free heard the sound of our car and rushed to us from the nearby mountain, running around us as if they were flying. Volunteers from the various groups often expressed their thoughts on the leashed or free-range animals, saying, “They are so poor.” One volunteer accused the owners in violent terms: “The owners in Fukushima are so f**king bastards!” I must admit, I shared the same harsh feelings. However, as I began to interview the owners, I came to have a much different view. It became apparent to me that the guardians in Fukushima had different values than most urban owners regarding such matters as the vulnerability of companion animals, the living space required for the animals, their degree of freedom, and the subordination or attachment of animals to familiar land. They simply defined animal happiness in different terms than urban owners. The values of the guardians in Fukushima might be described as the “rural philosophy regarding the happiness of companion animals.” This philosophy clearly influenced the complexity of the owners’ behavior. In urban areas, not only in Japan but in the Western world as well, it is expected that guardians give appropriate and responsible care throughout the life of their companion animals by keeping the animals under full human control. The rural philosophy assumes a much different relationship between humans and animals. At the heart of this rural philosophy is the principle that animals are not completely controlled by human beings, but rather are seen as being close to nature. Moreover, according to this philosophy, humans can live together with or beside their companion animals without intervening deeply into their lives. Such values are antithetical to many of the

150

H. KAJIWARA

pet-related practices found in urban areas, which often include animal neutering and excessive veterinary care. We need to be careful, however. We cannot truly understand the behavior of the guardians in Fukushima simply by accusing them of “cultural lag” or of holding beliefs that “should be corrected.” When I met with the owners of animals that had been left behind in the evacuation area, most expressed the opinion that their animals would be happier in a large area in nature rather than being confined in small and cramped temporary housing. In one Internet survey on the living arrangements of companion animals in Japan, it was reported that 85.7% of dogs live indoors only or indoors except during walks, and that 89% of cats live similarly (Japan Pet Food Association 2018). A survey by Anicom Insurance, a major pet insurance company, found that dogs and their guardians live closely linked to each other, with 36.1% of dogs sleeping in the same futon or bed as the owner, and 76.6% of dogs eating in the same room as the owner (Anicom Insurance, Inc. 2010). It should be noted, however, that in such Internet-based surveys or surveys targeting pet insurance policyholders, older owners who do not normally use the Internet—as is the case for many of the guardians in the Fukushima evacuation area—are not represented. According to the survey of owners in Fukushima conducted in this study, at the time of the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, 31.7% of dogs and 34.5% of cats were living indoors only or indoors except during walks. These results are markedly different from the results of the Internet survey conducted by the Japan Pet Food Association during the same period (see Fig. 7.2). A guardian’s interpretation of his/her animals’ vulnerability can significantly affect the owner’s decision to either release the animals or leave the animals inside their home when evacuating. For example, Mr. JF (age 70), who initially evacuated with his female Labrador, Lara, then returned her to his home in the evacuated area, feeding her every day, talked about his experience: Mr. JF : Because of this year’s heavy snow, I couldn’t go to feeding her for a week. But because there was a lot of snow, Lara jumped over the fence. And she went to a place where water was constantly flowing in my yard and was drinking water. So even if I don’t feed her for about a week, as Lara is a little fat so there is no problem.

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

151

Fig. 7.2 Living spaces of dogs and cats (Compiled by the author from a questionnaire survey by the author herself and Japan Pet Food Association Japan Pet Food Association [2012a, b])

Furthermore, the cat owners’ interpretation of the cat ecology also affected their behavior. The evacuation order areas in Fukushima are mostly rural. Here, cats generally have free access to the owner’s house or barn. In many cases, the number of cats who live with their guardians varies depending on the season. The number can increase with the birth

152

H. KAJIWARA

of kittens, or decrease as the cat becomes sick, weakens, and dies or is preyed upon by wild animals. This is quite different from the way cats are kept in the city, where they are given a name, get vaccinated, and are castrated. In the case of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, even if cat owners had wanted to evacuate with their cats, most cats hid themselves after the earthquake, making it impossible to find and catch them. Many owners believed that their cats could live on their own if they were left behind, except, perhaps, if they were kept indoors with only cat food. As a result, many cats were left behind in the areas under evacuation orders. Many guardians believed that their dogs and cats would protect their homes. During the interviews, it was not unusual for owners to mention that their dogs protected their home from wild boars and weasels, and that cats protected their homes from mice. In particular, dog owners would proudly describe their dog’s bravery or boldness in confronting wild animals. Many guardians in Fukushima kept their companion animals outdoors. Some believe that their animals would be able to survive without food for a week or so. Others left their cats thinking they could survive on their own. Despite appearances, there is little question that these owners valued the lives of their animals. Otherwise, they would not have returned to rescue their animals regardless of the risk of radiation exposure or drive an hour each way, every day, to feed their pets. Mr. DF (age 79) and his wife (age 77) kept a large calendar on the living room wall of their temporary housing. At the time of the interview, they had been feeding the three dogs that they had left in the village for nearly five years. Under each date on the calendar, they recorded the status of the dogs in notes such as, “Yuki ate food, Chataro was absent.” Even if they are living apart, the companion animals sustained the lives of the evacuees, serving as an anchor that prevented the ship from drifting. Among the interviewees in Fukushima, few guardians had neutered their cats or dogs before the nuclear accident. In the case of cats, most farmers and semi-farmers felt that cats settled freely in their barns or sheds and perceived their number as increasing or decreasing over time. Mr. JF (age 70) and Mrs. JF (age 66), who continued to keep their Labrador, Lara, in Katsurao Village and went to feed her every day, also left cat food for their cats, although they said that recently they could not see the cats. After the nuclear disaster, they had their three cats neutered on the strong recommendation of the volunteers who were feeding the animals in the village so that the number of cats would not increase.

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

153

Mr. JF : There were three cats. I didn’t know if they were male or female. They all underwent contraceptive surgery or castration surgery. I told the volunteer that if we do such a thing, all the cats will disappear. I said that kittens are born, increase, and the cat generation continues. However, the volunteer said that if the cat is gone, please buy it. I said, “Where is that money?” (Laugh)

Many people give puppies to friends or neighbors when the puppies are born. Sometimes they decide to throw the puppies into the river. Mr. and Mrs. DF, who had been going to feed their three dogs in Katsurao Village, were surprised to find that eight puppies were born when they went to feed their dog, Yuki, in May 2011. They stated that they dropped four of the puppies into the river. In fact, I sometimes heard such stories from interviewees, which, of course, was not an easy experience for me. However, I continued my interviewing to learn and interpret the world view of those who had done this. Mr. and Mrs. DF believed it acceptable (and perhaps compassionate) to drown a newborn puppy in the river. However, it seems that they thought it important to kill the animals before their eyes opened. Other owners, when they spoke of killing puppies, also noted that the puppies had not yet opened their eyes. Regarding this matter, Mr. TF (age 80) stated the following: TF : I can’t ever throw them away when the dogs grow up. So (I do it) as soon as they are born. The puppy still doesn’t know anything. If I find the puppy before it drinks mom’s milk, sometimes, I would throw the puppy gently into the river.

As described here, once the puppies drink their mother’s milk and walk with their eyes open, Mr. TF was unable to dispose of them. Otherwise, he had no problem with “throwing them away” as though they were a kind of excrement. When I first heard this, I was so shocked that my hands began to tremble. Of course, this was a violation of Japan’s Law “Act on Welfare and Management of Animals [Dobutsu no aigo oyobi kanrini kansuru horitsu]” (Ministry of the Environment 2019: Article 44). However, rather than judging such acts, I tried to understand the world as seen through the eyes of the person in front of me. From the stories told to me by Mr. TF and others, I could see that for they perceived a significant difference between the moments before and after a puppy’s eyes are opened. According to Mr. TF’s view of life, only when a

154

H. KAJIWARA

puppy’s eyes open and the puppy is able to walk about and see the world does the puppy actually exist as a creature. At that point, the owner is reluctant to kill the puppy because it means he/she would be taking the life of one of nature’s creatures. However, when the puppy is still little more than a dropping from the mother’s stomach, it is acceptable to throw it away if there is no way of keeping it. This idea is consistent with “mabiki,” the practice of infanticide in the Edo period in Japan. Although abortion and infanticide in the Edo period were an inevitable choice for parents due to extreme poverty, Toyoshima observes that mabiki was a manifestation of the “ancient Japanese spirit of ‘returning children to God’” as “children belong to the territory of God until age seven” (Toyoshima 2016: 77). In “Mabiki to mizuko — Kosodate no Fokuroa (Infanticide and an Aborted Fetus: The Folklore of Child-rearing),” Chiba and Otsu note that the public in Edo believed that a “child is a being that is close to a mass of meat in which it is still difficult to recognize personality immediately after birth. As they go through various processes after birth, spirits given by Ubugami (a guardian deity of pregnant women and newborn baby) enter the child” (Chiba and Otsu 1983: 191). If one assumes that the remnants of this view of life still affect the emotions of the elderly in rural Japan, the act of killing puppies by Mr. TF and others may be comprehensible. The attachment of the guardians to their house and land has also influenced the complexity of the guardians’ behavior. Unlike those whose homes were damaged or destroyed in the tsunami-affected areas, in the case of the nuclear disaster, most of the victims’ homes remained behind a fence demarcating the areas of contamination. Some, like Hitomi Sato in Chapter 5, left temporary housing and moved to a new home, but have no real sense that they are “going forward,” nor have they given up on their land and former life. Those who now live with their pets in temporary housing and those who continue to feed their animals in the ordered evacuation areas also are hoping to again live together with their pets in their original homes. Of course, there are various specific concerns. Even if the evacuation order is lifted, will the elderly be able to live in their original homes? How many of the village residents will return to the village? How will the village be managed with respect to administrative functions and medical care? Whenever I make my periodic return visits to the interviewees, many tell me of their decline in physical strength and their hesitation to make future choices. As mentioned, for many of these people, pets are an important “anchor” for their everyday lives. Thus, it is

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

155

not easy for them to hand over their animals to new owners, as it implies that they have let go of a previous life that they might still be able to get back.

Note 1. For TEPCO’s compensation amounts and the complicated classification of support from the government, see Fukuda (2015: 60–61), Hyo 1 Hinanmoto ni motodzuku nana bunrui to baisho shien-saku no gaiyo [Table 1 Seven Classifications Based on Evacuation Sources and Summary of Compensation and Support Measures].

References Literature in Japanese Anicom Insurance, Inc. (2010). 2010-Nen 11 tsuki 19-nichi puresuririsu: Petto (inu) no seikatsu sutairu, masumasu kazoku-ka e [November 19, 2010 press release: The lifestyle of pets (dogs) is increasingly becoming a family]. Retrieved December 9, 2016, from http://www.anicom-sompo.co.jp/com pany/news/news_0101119.html. Chiba, T., & Ohtsu, T. (1983). Mabiki to mizuko - kosodate no fokuroa [Infanticide and an aborted fetus: The folklore of child-rearing]. Tokyo: Noson gyoson bunka kyokai. Citizen Scientist International Conference Executive Committee and “Science” editorial department [Shimin kagaku-sha kokusai kaigi jikkoiinkai “kagaku” henshu-bu]. (2014). Hibaku o meguru jikeiretsu-hyo [Time series table on exposure]. Kagaku [Science], 84(3), 348–350 [pdf file]. Retrieved October 7, 2019, from https://www.iwanami.co.jp/kagaku/Kagaku_201403_hibaku jikeiretsu.pdf. The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan [Denkijigyorengokai]. (n.d.). Kokunai no genshiryokuhatsudenjo no sai kado ni muketa taiojokyo [Responses to restarting nuclear power plants in Japan]. Retrieved October 7, 2019, from https://www.fepc.or.jp/theme/re-operation/#wrap. Fukuda, K. (2015). Genpatsu hinan-sha no bunrui o kangaeru [Consider the classification of nuclear evacuees]. Genpatsu hinan hakusho [Nuclear evacuation white paper]. Kanseigakuindaigaku saigai fukko seido kenkyujo [Research Institute for Disaster Recovery System, Kwansei Gakuin University], Higashinihon daishinsai shien zenkoku nettowaku (JCN) [The Great East Japan Earthquake Support National Network (JCN)] and Fukushima no kodomo-tachi o mamoru h¯ oritsuya nettow¯aku (SAFLAN) [Lawyers Network

156

H. KAJIWARA

to Protect Fukushima Children (SAFLAN)] (Ed.) (pp. 56–61). Kyoto: Jinbunshoin. Fukushima International Medical Science Center Radiological Health Management of Citizens of the prefecture Center [Fukushima kokusai iryo kagaku senta hoshasen igaku kenmin kenko kanri senta]. (n.d.). Fukushimaken “kenmin kenko chosa” to wa [What is the Fukushima “prefectural health survey”]. Retrieved October 7, 2019, from http://fukushima-mimamori.jp/ outline/. Fukushima Prefecture: Fukushima Revitalization Station [Fukushimaken Fukushima fukko suteshon]. (n.d.). Fukushima daiichi genpatsu no hai-ro ni muketa torikumi ni tsuite [The efforts for decommissioning of Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Station]. Retrieved October 30, 2019, from https:// www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/03-more.html. Hino, K. (2017). Dai 1-sho kojosen kensa ni shikuma reta wana [Chapter 1 The trap that has been set inside the thyroid examination]. In K. Hino & R. Hatsuo (Eds.), Fukushima 6 nen go, Kesa re yuku hi gai: Yugame rareta Cherunobuiri deta [Fukushima 6 years later, the damage are erasing: The Chernobyl data which was distorted] (pp. 17–51). Kyoto: Jinbunshoin. Honma, R. (2016). Genpatsu puropaganda [Nuclear power plant propaganda]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Japan Pet Food Association [Ippan shadanhojin pettofudo kyokai]. (2012a). Heisei 23-nen (2011-nen) zenkoku inuneko shiiku jittai chosa: Inu shiiku kyuji jittai (1) shiiku jittai no shosai [National breeding survey of dog and cats 2011: The actual conditions of dog breeding and feeding (1) Details of breeding conditions] [pdf file]. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https:// petfood.or.jp/data/chart2011/03.html. Japan Pet Food Association [Ippan shadanhojin pettofudo kyokai]. (2012b). Heisei 23-nen (2011-nen) zenkoku inuneko shiiku jittai chosa: Neko shiiku kyuji jittai (1) shiiku jittai no shosai [National breeding survey of dog and cats 2011: The actual conditions of cat breeding and feeding (1) Details of breeding conditions] [pdf file]. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https:// petfood.or.jp/data/chart2011/06.html. Japan Pet Food Association [Ippan shadanhojin pettofudo kyokai]. (2018). Heisei 30-nen (2018-nen) zenkoku inuneko shiiku jittai chosa shuyo shihyo samari [National breeding survey of dog and cats 2018: Summary of key indicators] [pdf file]. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://petfood.or.jp/data/cha rt2018/3.pdf. Kon, N. (2019, August 9). Contaminated water tanks in Fukushima will be full in 3 years. Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved October 30, 2019, from http://www. asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201908090025.html. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry [Keizaisangyosho]. (2017). Hinan shiji kuiki no gainen-zu (Heisei 29-nen 4 tsuki 1-nichi jiten) [Conceptual

7

COMPLEXITIES IN FUKUSHIMA

157

diagram of evacuation instruction area as of April 1, fiscal year 2017] [pdf file].Retrieved October 30, 2019, from https://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/ nuclear/kinkyu/hinanshiji/2017/pdf/0401gainenzu02.pdf. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2019). Dobutsu no aigo oyobi kanrini kansuru horitsu (Showa 48-nen horitsu dai 105-go) (2019-nen kaisei) [Act on Welfare and Management of Animals (Law No. 105 of 1973) (2019 revision)] [pdf file]. Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://www.env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/aigo/2_data/laws/ nt_r010619_39_5.pdf. National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission [Kokkai jikocho Tokyodenryoku Fukushima genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko chosa iinkai hokokusho]. (2012). Hokoku-sho [Report] [pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from http://www.mhmjapan.com/con tent/files/00001736/naiic_honpen2_0.pdf. nomorefukushima2011. (2017). Genpatsu jiko-go no kojosen kensa: Gan shindan no 4-sai danji hokoku sa rezu [Thyroid examination after the nuclear accident: The case of 4 years old boy with cancer diagnosis was not reported]. Retrieved October 7, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oudKseo3eDk. sievert311. (2011). Yamashita Shunichi tondemo hatsugen [Ridiculous remarks of Shunichi Yamashita]. Retrieved April 23, 2017, from https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=PuwFrNEgDTg. Toyoshima, Y. (2016). Edo jidai koki no datai mabiki ni tsuite no jitsujo to kodomo-kan (seimei-kan) [The actual situation and view of children (view of life) about abortion and thinning in the late Edo period]. Ryotokuji-dai-gaku kenkyu kiyo [The Bulletin of Ryotokuji University], 10, 77–86. Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic Supreme Conference Public Relations [Ukuraina sovieto shakai shugi kyowakoku saiko kaigi koho]. (n.d.). The House of Representatives Japan Web [pdf file].Retrieved April 23, 2017, from http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_annai.nsf/html/sta tics/shiryo/cherno15.pdf/$File/cherno15.pdf. Yamazaki, S. (2015). A survey of companion-animal owners affected by the east Japan great earthquake in iwate and fukushima prefectures, Japan. Anthrozoös, 28(2), 291–304.

PART IV

Social Structures and Causal Mechanisms

CHAPTER 8

Applying Critical Realism to Real Life

British philosopher Roy Bhaskar (1997, 1998) developed a framework for analyzing deep social structures. Known as “critical realism,” it is an approach that challenges the overly subjective, relativistic view of the world such as occurs with social constructionism or postmodernism. At the same time, critical realists disagree with simple positivism, which claims that only objectively observable events can be a source of knowledge. This section briefly explains an epistemological standpoint derived from Bhaskar’s meta-theory. Bhaskar argues that the world has “intransitive dimensions” that exist independently of our cognition and consciousness, and epistemological aspects of “transitive dimensions” that are understood through our subjectivity. He also argues that the real world consists of three domains: the “empirical domain,” the “actual domain” and the “real domain.” The “empirical domain” is the world that people experience. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the “actual domain” is the realm of what is actually happening, whether we are aware of it or not. The “real domain” is comprised of the structures and mechanisms that cause a phenomenon. He further posits that these three domains influence each other. In his version of critical realism, the most important task is to reveal the historical and structural mechanisms that produce events. To that end, critical realists seek to uncover the real structures and causal mechanisms that cannot be experienced directly. © The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_8

161

162

H. KAJIWARA

To discern those facets of social life, critical realists make use of retroduction, abduction, induction, and deduction. Abduction and retroduction are particularly important ways of making inferences about hidden structures and causal mechanisms. At the same time, abduction and retroduction are closely related. It is reasonable to think that these two forms of inference are performed simultaneously and reflectively as necessary in actual research (see Danermark et al. 2002: 113, Table 4 The stages in an explanatory research based on critical realism). Since our societies are open systems, the social phenomena we describe cannot be tested under comparable conditions. Therefore, predictions from theory are eschewed in critical realism. Bhaskar argues that theories should not be assessed in terms of the predictabilities they exude, but rather in terms of the understanding that they afford. The research described above is focused on guardians and their companion animals in the Great East Japan Earthquake and explores the human-animal relationship in modern Japanese society. When a disaster occurs, the relationships and structures embedded in daily life are suddenly subjected to unexpected duress. Abruptly experiencing lifealtering changes, those swallowed up by such events are usually unaware of the deep structures that come to affect the choices they face. This chapter describes aspects of such structures as they impinged upon those affected by the March 2011 tsunami. Beyond the world of everyday consciousness, real domains are always deeply embedded in any society and interact in a complex manner with events and experiences that are the daily reality for many ordinary citizens. The Great East Japan Earthquake and the subsequent nuclear disaster was much more than a natural disaster. It was also a bundle of human disasters, social system defects, and contradictory forces that highlight various social tensions. The spread of radioactivity and the decision to abandon animals in the evacuation areas certainly fell outside anything previously experienced by those affected. Chapters 3 and 5 introduced the life stories of Ryoichi Suzuki and Hitomi Sato. Each of the two chapters was followed by a chapter devoted to placing the subject’s life story into a broader context, using data obtained from observation, media reports, and other fieldwork to gain insight into the actual domain. This chapter draws on the information described in Part II and Part III to tease out the deeper underlying structures shaping the guardians’ experience. To do so, the techniques of abduction and retroduction are

8

APPLYING CRITICAL REALISM TO REAL LIFE

163

brought into play. These processes are typically left to the creativity and imagination of the individual researcher. In any case, critical realism is a meta-theory that explores the way of understanding the world. It rather criticizes the notion that the research method itself becomes the purpose. Critical realism emphasizes the explanatory power of the results. Furthermore, critical realism acknowledges that all explanations are part of the “transitive dimension” (Bhaskar 1998: 11–13) and can make mistakes; that is, another reasoning with higher explanatory power can be established. The explanations derived from reasoning by critical realism are always open to discussion. Critical realists do not believe that they can inductively comprehend structure from the facts gathered. In order to infer from individual events to the “real domain,” the critical realism methodology requires a leap using abduction and retroduction. When inferring a structure or system that causes an event or phenomenon to occur, Danermark et al. explain that the researcher formulates the research question thus: “What properties must exist for X to exist and to be what X is? Or, to put it more briefly: What makes X possible?” (Danermark et al. 2002: 97). This chapter reconstructs what happened in society in the actual domain based on the empirical domain. It also seeks to highlight some of the similarities and differences—along with the reasons for them—among the guardians’ experiences. This allows us to move toward answers for the second and third research questions posed in Chapter 1: (2) Why was the relationship between guardians and their companion animals ignored during and after the disaster? (3) What structures or mechanisms shaped the outcomes for animals and their guardians following the March 2011 tsunami?

8.1

Distinguishing Between the Two Disasters

In the description of how guardians and their companion animals survived in the aftermath of the 2011 tsunami, Chapters 3–7 revealed significant differences between Miyagi and Iwata Prefectures to the north and Fukushima Prefecture to the south. Before the tsunami, companion animals were seen by many guardians in areas to the north as a kind of child in ways that did not differ much from Greenebaum’s “fur baby” (2004), resulting in something similar

164

H. KAJIWARA

to Hansen’s “fuzzy new families” (2013) in his study of the relationship between urban people and their dogs. In Fukushima, where many were engaged in animal husbandry, however, companion animals were seen as being somewhere between “pets” and “just animals.” Of course, not all interviewees were the same, and some in the areas hit by radiation felt a deep affinity with their companion animals similar to that described for those in the two prefectures further north. In the tsunami area, most guardians described the relationship between human and animal as one in which the two are tied together individually and uniquely, face-to-face, thus supporting the findings of Greenebaum (2004) and Hansenn (2013). In Fukushima, the relationships were predominantly described in terms of plural humans and plural animals, connected in the midst of surrounding nature. Differences in the nature of the disasters were also important. For example, the effects of the tsunami were immediate, and the risk of dying or of serious injury to both owners and their pets was very high. Victims and their pets experienced the ensuing crisis together, further enhancing the notion that they were as parent and child. As a result, the direct relationship between the owners and their animal companions continued to strengthen, even after the animal had died. In the two northern prefectures, the people felt that the disaster was a natural force that could not be helped. Although their homes and villages along the coastline had been destroyed, families moved on to the next stage of their lives and were quick to accept the fact that they would be living in new communities. In that sense, the recovery process seemed to be relatively smooth and straightforward compared to the experience of those affected by the radiation in Fukushima Prefecture. When pets died, the owners adopted their next pet fairly soon thereafter, so that the parent-child relationship could be re-established rather quickly. In contrast, guardians in the Fukushima area faced long-term risks, fearing outcomes that could not be fully known or evaluated in the near future. Although their lives were not swept away by a single short stroke of fate, their original homes were contaminated with invisible radiation and gradually lost as places in which to live out their lives. The serious consequences they would face revealed themselves to the residents only gradually. In Fukushima, families were further fatigued mentally and physically by the need to deal with conflicting assessments regarding the effects of radioactivity and by constant arguing over how the compensation money

8

APPLYING CRITICAL REALISM TO REAL LIFE

165

could most fairly be distributed. Without the clear resolution of such matters, they could not decide whether to return to their properties or invest what limited resources they had elsewhere and commit to the new communities in which they found themselves. In short, their lives were fraught with uncertainty in a long and drawn-out process, and they had been left to live “on standby.” For many of those victims, a companion animal became the anchor that kept them from drifting too far from the lifestyle culture that they had internalized in a previous existence. Initially, many sought to maintain a sense of continuity by going daily to feed their animals. For them, even their livestock—farm animals, animals to eventually be sold or butchered—had personalities. Many evacuees in Fukushima did not expect that their children or grandchildren would return to the land, but clung to the hope that someday in the foreseeable future they would be able to return to their homes, if only by themselves. Hidden in their body language, however, were words they could not speak, a lament that only they would be returning to “ground zero.” Inside they wrestled with the prospect of dying without their children. All that was left of the bigger dream was a forlorn wish to perish with the animals they loved.

8.2

Actual Domain: Oppression

An outline of actual events is instructive—whether or not the guardians themselves recognize them as having happened. Although the evacuation ordinance stipulated that guardians should be evacuated with their companion animals, this had little impact at the disaster site. The companion animals and their owners were excluded from normal support at various stages of evacuation, at the discretion of the person responsible for each site. In the areas hit by the tsunami, the basic orientation was that humans should be given clear priority over animals. By and large, those without animals were indifferent to the need that owners felt for staying with their companion animals. Meanwhile, in the areas affected by radiation, the fate of pets and their owners was strongly influenced by the paradigm that had long governed, either in a visible or invisible way, the administration and the people there—a paradigm prioritizing the nuclear power industry. It was as if there were a tacit agreement among those in government that the life of an animal could and would be easily sacrificed. There appeared to be little understanding of the bond between animals and their guardians.

166

H. KAJIWARA

Although social exclusion is often discussed in connection with poverty, the European Commission states that this is not the only meaning (1992: 8). The Commission points to “the multidimensional nature of the mechanisms whereby individuals and groups are excluded from taking part in the social exchanges, from the component practices and rights of social integration and of identity” (ibid.). Thus, exclusion is not only a state of being, but also a process. The Commission’s declaration aims to promote community support for social inclusion. Living with a companion animal is not just an owner’s personal predilection, it is often a key part of his/her identity, and depriving it can be viewed as a form of social exclusion. In many ways, the social exclusion of companion animals and their guardians has an embedded structure in everyday life. The fact that they are not given high priority in disaster management plans and that they have been often overlooked in the framework of victim compensation is thus not wholly surprising. In March 2015, the United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction was held in Sendai City, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. The main theme of the Conference was Inclusive Disaster Risk Management (UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR] 2015). Inclusive disaster risk management is not just superficial equality in the event of a disaster, but rather it is based on the idea that reasonable consideration should be given to the special needs of people such as those with disabilities, the elderly, and those with allergies. Reflecting the worldwide attention given to disaster risk management, the Japanese Cabinet Office has set out a policy for managing shelters for “people requiring consideration” in its Guidelines for Ensuring a Good Living Environment in Emergency Shelters (Cabinet Office 2013, revised 2016). However, no mention is made of companion animals and their owners. Indeed, these Cabinet Office guidelines essentially contradict the Ministry of the Environment’s stipulations for pets, which are based on the principle that pet owners should be evacuated with their pets (Ministry of the Environment 2013). In both the tsunami disaster area and the nuclear disaster area, the relationship between guardian and companion animal, which tends to be strengthened (and its importance elevated) in the event of a disaster, was routinely ignored. The common problem in both areas was the social oppression of guardians and their companion animals.

8

8.3

APPLYING CRITICAL REALISM TO REAL LIFE

167

Real Domain: Structural Mechanisms

As stated above, the relationship between owners and their companion animals was minimized or ignored during and after the twin disasters. What, then, caused this neglect? What structures and/or mechanisms shaped such an outcome? Retroduction provides the means to infer the real domain structures that produced such a phenomenon. 8.3.1

Trivializing Companion Animals

In the overview of the actual domain presented in Sect. 8.2, it was suggested that the lives of companion animals were considered relatively insignificant, which resulted in a kind of willful negligence that allowed animals to die in the emergency. The relationship between owner and animal was rarely considered. Moreover, guardians who evacuated with their pets were deemed to have renounced their rights as general refugees, and the value of their lives was correspondingly reduced. Although evacuees who came with their animals were denied emergency support and were forced to live in their cars, people around them accepted the difficulties of owners uncritically. Absent the conclusion that many of those in control placed a far higher value on human life than on the lives of companion animals, management’s general neglect of pets, and their lack of concern for those who were made to live for months in their cars outside the shelters, cannot be fully understood. Other refugees cast an icy stare on owners who had evacuated with their pets, treating them as nuisances whose extraneous possessions only caused trouble and disruption. There appeared to be tacit agreement among non-owners that trying to maintain a relationship with a companion animal was a matter of personal choice and that those who chose to do so were unacceptably selfish. Apparent here is the logic that companion animals, as a different species from humans, are not deserving of reasonable consideration. Owners who tried to maintain their relationship with this other species did so at their own risk and were excluded from receiving reasonable consideration by being part of this animal-human set. On the other hand, the animal specialists and rescue volunteers who offered help to companion animals in the twin disaster areas understandably focused on saving animal lives. For them, the life of the animals was the paramount subject of their core ideology. Their sole purpose was

168

H. KAJIWARA

to ensure that the animals survived; it was not to preserve the relationship between the owners and their animals. There is no doubt that these volunteers saved the lives of countless animals and that the actions of these brave individuals, who had no funds and no organization, should be enthusiastically celebrated. Nevertheless, it can be surely said that there was a common perception among activists that the lives of the animals had priority over the bond between animal and owner. 8.3.2

Vague Notions of Dobutsu Aigo

Hansen (2013) describes the relationship between humans and pets in Japanese cities as “‘fuzzy’ new families,” reflecting the kind of fictive kinship that has emerged in Japan over the last 30 years. In the everyday social life of the Japanese people, the special relationship between companion animals and their owners has received increasing attention. A park in the heart of Tokyo provides a dog park and features a cafe where owners can go with their pets. Guardians can travel by airplane to hotels where they can stay with their companion animals. Japanese television frequently broadcasts programs in which celebrities gush over puppies and kittens and other newborn pets. Ordinary people as well as popular entertainers post photo after photo of themselves and their companion animals on SNS. In recent years, veterinary medicine has increasingly provided advanced—and expensive—medical care, and early detection and early treatment are encouraged. At least on the surface of Japanese society, then, the relationship between owners and companion animals is treated as individual and important, and animal lives are treated as valuable. However, while this appears to be the case in normal times, once a disaster occurs, a sharp line seems to be drawn between people and animals. In 1973, the Japanese government implemented the Act on the Welfare and Management of Animals [Dobutsu no aigo oyobi kanrini kansuru horitsu] (most recently revised in 2019, see Ministry of the Environment 2019). Since the revision in 1999, penalties for animal abuse and abandonment have been progressively tightened in phases. According to the Act’s most recent revisions, anyone who neglects or abandons a companion animal can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to one year and required to pay a fine of up to one million yen (approximately US$9175 US dollars) (ibid. Article 44, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3). (Prior to the most recent amendment, the fine was roughly

8

APPLYING CRITICAL REALISM TO REAL LIFE

169

500,000 yen [approximately US$4500]). However, when the Fukushima power plant accident occurred, the Japanese government decided unilaterally that all animals should be abandoned within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant. The Fukushima prefectural government quickly followed suit by banning evacuation with companion animals. In so doing, the government essentially encouraged large-scale violations of its own laws. In sum, in modern Japanese society, animals are generally considered “cute” [kawaii] and are common as pets. The Japanese people routinely use services for and with their companion animals. Moreover, as cited above, the law prohibits the neglect and abandonment of animals. What, then, is the structure hidden deep in Japanese society that makes it possible for people to ignore the relationship between companion animals and their owners in an emergency? As stated previously, the way to construct questions in critical realism is to ask “What makes X possible?” Applying this principle seems a reasonable way to find an answer to the question of what made it possible for people to ignore the relationship between guardians and the companion animals during and following the dual disasters of 2011. In Japan, the law that is most closely related to companion animals is the aforementioned Dobutsu no aigo oyobi kanrini kansuru horitsu. Although the Japanese government officially translates this as “Act on the Welfare and Management of Animals,” the literal English translation is “Act on Love and Protection for Animals and the Management of Animals.” The literal translation is used here to emphasize the actual intent and meaning of the law. The law’s purpose is directed toward Establishing matters relating to love and protection for animals and inviting an atmosphere of love and protection for animals among the public, contributing to the cultivation of respect for life, friendship and peace. Establishing matters related to animal management to prevent infringement on human life, body and property by animals, and hindrance to the preservation of the living environment.

and, from these two principles, Realizing a society where people and animals coexist (Ministry of the Environment 2019: Act on the Love and Protection for Animals and Management of Animals [Dobutsu no aigo oyobi kanrini kansuru horitsu] Chapter 1 General Rules (Purpose) Article 1).

170

H. KAJIWARA

In other words, the purpose of the law is to nurture positive public emotions by instilling an “atmosphere” that promotes the love and protection of animals. At the same time, the law invokes the notion that managing animals properly minimizes the danger or inconvenience to people that animals might otherwise cause. From this perspective, the law appears to have been enacted for the benefit of humans. Under the law, animals are not so much the holders of rights as they are objects to be loved and protected. “The Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo]” is an ambiguous expression that indicates a vague affection for animals in general. In Japan, it is a convenient term, used in many situations—for example, when referring to the rescue or protection of animals, or how to properly keep animals. Iseda states that, although dobutsu aigo (“the Love and Protection for Animals”) is the most commonly used expression in Japan to describe the concerns of those working on behalf of animals, there is no corresponding term in the Western world. He further notes that the term is ambiguous with respect to actions that should be taken, as compared to terms such as “the prevention of cruelty to animals,” “humane treatment,” and “animal protection” that are commonly used in English-speaking countries. The Japanese term emphasizes the inner sensibility of human beings who love animals (Iseda 2015: 19). In a preliminary study analyzing Japanese newspaper articles from 1970 to 2015, Kajiwara found that terms such as “animal rights [dobutsu no kenri]” or “welfare of animals [dobutsu fukushi]” are rarely used in newspaper articles in Japan (Kajiwara 2015). She asserts that the Japanese sensibility for animals that wraps all animal-related concepts in the term “the Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo]” could be called the “cute and pitiable principle [kawaii ando kawaiso syugi].” Kajiwara further notes that, under this principle, the status and treatment of animals depend very much on human emotions (ibid.). Sociologist Margo DeMello describes the creation of Human-Animal Studies (HAS), an academic discipline that focuses on human-animal relationships, as follows: HAS has risen parallel to the animal protection movement, and indeed borrows heavily from that movement.(…)The publication of two major philosophical works on animals—Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1975), followed by Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (1983)—led to an explosion of interest in animals among academics, animal advocates, and the general public. (DeMello 2012: 5)

8

APPLYING CRITICAL REALISM TO REAL LIFE

171

However, in Japan, the fundamental philosophy of HAS has not been discussed deeply. Most academic research, as well as most animal-related practices, is carried out within the framework of dobustu aigo as a way to express love for animals as an attitude of the heart. In Japan, it can be said that there has been no theoretical development regarding whether animals truly have rights.1 Why do discussions that are centered on animals in Japan invariably take place in the ambiguous context of “the Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo]”? The answer is likely connected to who controls and promotes the discourse. Most prominent in this regard are the “public interest corporations,” veterinary organizations, and academic societies, all of whom are deeply involved in the 1.5 trillion yen (US$13.7 billion) pet industry in Japan. It is not unreasonable to believe that these entities conceive of animal lives as their products. Even the scholars who support Japan’s Human-Animal Studies (HAS) mostly teach in colleges that train veterinarians and veterinary nurses, which means that they, too, are stakeholders in the commercial pet industry. The “proper breeding” of companion animals in Japan serves as a useful example of the situation. The Japanese Ministry of the Environment Guidelines (2010) emphasize owner responsibility. Pet owners must neuter and vaccinate their animals. They are obliged to feed them “appropriate” pet food and to look after their pets to ensure that do not inconvenience other people. Cats should be kept indoors, especially in densely populated areas. At the same time, however, the numerous animals that remain unsold in pet shops are routinely disposed of as faulty merchandise or sold to puppy mills for reproduction. Puppies and kittens born in pet factories are quickly separated from their mothers and sent to market at a very early age (while they are still kawaii) despite the fact that early weaning is often detrimental to healthy growth. At the present time, it is very difficult in Japan to discuss the rights and benefits of these animals and to urge legislation on their behalf. Asking whether animals are individual beings with rights involves not only the relationship between the companion animal and human beings; it also pertains to livestock, meat sources, zoos, and aquariums. If experimental animals have rights, then a broad framework affecting medical advances and, ultimately, the future development of society will be required. It is for these reasons and more that stakeholders embrace the ambiguity of “the Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo].” Even when roundly criticized by overseas NGOs for dolphin hunting, whaling,

172

H. KAJIWARA

and the suspect operation of Japanese zoos and aquariums, most refuse to deal with the issues head-on. Rather, they dismiss such allegations as the product of extremist organizations abroad, i.e., foreign interference. Japanese animal rescue efforts are conducted mostly by individual volunteers who, given their limited numbers and lack of political clout, are unable to initiate significant change in Japanese society. Their work tends to be limited to adoption or TNR (trap, neuter, return). Uchikoshi, a leading Japanese policy researcher on animals, has said, “I believe that it is difficult to reflect animal rights theory in public policy, given the current economic and social conditions” (Uchikoshi 2016: 314). She sees virtue in Japan’s unique concept of “the Love and Protection for Animals” and insists on a re-recognition and re-evaluation of dobutsu aigo. Her main theses can be summarized as follows: (1) The concept of dobutsu aigo is meaningful enough to deepen consideration for animals, even if it is emotional; (2) Seeing animals as cute, and loving them, is the presentation of a tender personality; (3) A tender personality realizes the co-living of people and animals. Uchikoshi claims that dobutsu aigo is effective in promoting a warm connection throughout human society, encouraging such things as consideration for the socially vulnerable and for little children (ibid.: 315–316). Hers is a “tender claim” that does not threaten pet industry commercialism. She effectively shelves fundamental debate on animal rights, accepting as inevitable the supremacy of a logic that gives precedence to capitalistic markets. She advances an argument that mirrors the purpose of the “the Act on the Love and Protection for Animals and Management of Animals [Dobutsu no aigo oyobi kanrini kansuru horitsu].” Since those in Japan who discuss animal welfare and make decisions related to the handling of animals, as well as those who research such matters, are predominantly pet industry and animal husbandry stakeholders, the parameters laid down by Uchikoshi are widely embraced. What has become clear in this study, which focuses on the disaster experience, is that the nature of the relationship between owner and companion animal is outside the logic that gives priority to capitalistic profit-driven markets. In the tsunami areas, animals who were “children” in various ways became even more important to their owners after the disaster, and their owners chose their behaviors based on the companion animals in their lives. In the nuclear disaster areas, the animals became a connection for their owners to life before evacuation and an anchor

8

APPLYING CRITICAL REALISM TO REAL LIFE

173

that kept the guardians from drifting about in a sea of post-disaster ambiguity. The owners tended to attach importance to the semi-wild nature in companion animals and valued the natural environment in which they lived. In all of the prefectures studied, the owners’ bond with their companion animals gave much-needed support under difficult circumstances. In normal times, the “cute and pitiable principle [kawaii ando kawaiso syugi]” (Kajiwara 2015) may not be problematic; generally speaking, when people’s emotions are stable, the status of the animals around them is stable, as well. However, where order has been destroyed by events as catastrophic as the Great East Japan Earthquake, the relationship between guardians and their companion animals can be easily ignored under the vague concept of “the Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo].” In Japan, the relationship between humans and animals is circumscribed by the notion of dobutsu aigo, which appeals to the emotional side of humans and emphasizes the “cuteness” of animals and their need for love. Under this prevailing view, the status and treatment of animals depend on human emotions. The fundamental idea of Human-Animal Studies (HAS), a discipline that has developed over the past 30 years in the international academic world—especially in the Western world— has rarely been the subject of in-depth discussion in Japan. The reason for this is rather apparent: Those who control the discussion are, for the most part, stakeholders in the animal/pet industry who defend Japanesestyle dobutsu aigo and view the relationship between humans and animals through the lens of economic priorities. In short, the discussion has been constrained by the capitalistic framework of the country’s economic system. (The structure described here is illustrated in Fig. 8.1.) Based on what has been learned in this study, the strong tie between owners who have experienced disaster and their companion animals is well outside the capitalistic framework that treats animals as commodities. As illustrated in Fig. 8.1, there is no place to fit this relationship in the conventional structure of Japanese animal welfare theory. It seems clear from the inference thus far that the root of this discrepancy is an underlying structure that ignores the relationship between guardians and their companion animals in times of crisis. The next chapter explores the development of theories to change this situation.

174

H. KAJIWARA

Fig. 8.1 Structure of Japanese “The Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo]” (Created by author)

Note 1. The few exceptions are Iseda (2008, 2011), who is working on animal rights from an ethical standpoint, and Aoki (2002, 2004, 2016), who is a scholar of comparative law. Ota, a reporter for the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, has written works and articles that question the structure of the pet industry (Ota 2010).

8

APPLYING CRITICAL REALISM TO REAL LIFE

175

References Literature in English Bhaskar, R. (1997). A realist theory of science. London, New York: Verso (first published 1975). Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Press (first published 1979). Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., & Jakobsen, L. (2002). Explaining society: An introduction to critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge. DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and society: An introduction to human–animal studies. New York: Columbia University Press. European Commission. (1992). Towards a Europe of solidarity: intensifying the fight against social exclusion: Fostering integration. Brussels: European Commission [pdf file]. Retrieved December 9, 2016, from http://aei.pitt. edu/4819/1/4819.pdf. Greenebaum, J. (2004). It’s a dog’s life: Elevating status from pet to“ fur baby” at yappy hour. Society & Animals, 12(2), 117–135. Hansen, P. (2013). Urban Japan’s “fuzzy” new families: Affect and embodiment in dog–human relationships. Asian Anthropology, 12(2), 83–103. Kajiwara, H. (2015). Japanese ideas concerning animal rights: The changing role of pets in society. Conference paper, Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://www.academia.edu/38189234/Changing_Ideas_Concer ning_Animal_Rights_in_Japan_and_the_Role_of_Pets_in_Japanese_Society. Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights: Updated with a new preface (2nd ed. from 1983). Berkeley: University of California Press. Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation: The definitive classic of the animal movement. New York: HarperCollins (rev. 1975). The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). (2015). Issue brief: Inclusive disaster risk management—Governments, communities and groups acting together [pdf file]. Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://www. wcdrr.org/uploads/Inclusive-Disaster-Risk-Management-2.pdf.

Literature in Japanese Aoki, H. (2002). Dobutsu no hikaku-ho bunka: Dobutsu hogo-ho no nichio hikaku [Animal comparative law culture: Japan-Europe comparison of animal protection laws]. Tokyo: Yuhikaku. Aoki, H. (2004). Ho to dobutsu: Hitotsu no hogaku kogi [Law and animals: a law lecture]. Tokyo: Akashishoten. Aoki, H. (2016). Nihon no dobutsu-ho (dai 2-ban) [Japanese animal law] (2nd ed.). Tokyo: Tokyodaigaku shuppankai.

176

H. KAJIWARA

Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (Naikakufu). Disaster Management Web. (2013). Hinanjo ni okeru ryokona seikatsu kankyo no kakuho ni muketa torikumi shishin [Guidelines for ensuring a good living environment at shelters] [pdf file]. Retrieved August 26, 2016, from http://www.bousai.go.jp/ taisaku/hinanjo/h25/pdf/kankyoukakuho-honbun.pdf. Iseda, T. (2008). Dobutsu kara no rinri-gaku nyumon [Introduction to ethics from animals]. Nagoya: Nagoyadaigaku shuppankai. Iseda, T. (2011). Shinpojiumu teidaisha hokoku yoshi Dobutsu no kenri wa naze settoku-ryoku o motsu no ka: Rinri-teki kizoku-sha bunmyaku shugi no kokoromi [Symposium proposer presentation abstract Why animal rights are persuasive: An attempt of ethical attributor contextualism]. Rinri-Gaku Kenkyu, 41, 3–12. Iseda, T. (2015). Nihon ni okeru dobutsu fukushi no rekishi [History of animal welfare in Japan]. In Y. Ueno & S. Takeda (Eds.), Dobutsu fukushi no ima: Dobutsu to no yoriyoi kankei o kizuku tame ni [The present state of animal welfare: To build a better relationship with animals] (pp. 17–23). Tokyo: Norintokeishuppan. Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2010). Jutaku misshu-chi ni okeru inuneko no tekisei shiyo gaidorain [Guidelines for proper dogs and cats keeping in densely populated areas] [pdf file]. Retrieved December 9, 2016, from https://www.env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/aigo/2_d ata/pamph/h2202.pdf. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2013). Saigaiji ni okeru petto no kyugo taisaku gaidorain [Disaster measures guideline for pet relief] [pdf file]. Retrieved September 3, 2015, from https://www.env. go.jp/nature/dobutsu/aigo/2_data/pamph/h2506/full.pdf. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2019). Dobutsu no aigo oyobi kanrini kansuru horitsu (Showa 48-nen horitsu dai 105-go) (2019-nen kaisei) [Act on welfare and management of animals (Law No. 105 of 1973) (2019 revision)] [pdf file]. Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://www.env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/aigo/2_data/laws/nt_ r010619_39_5.pdf. Ota, M. (2010). Inu o korosu no wa dare ka: Petto ryutsu no yami [Who kills dogs: The dark side of pet distribution]. Tokyo: Asahishinbun shuppan. Uchikoshi, A. (2016). Nihon no dobutsu seisaku [Japanese animal policy]. Kyoto: Nakanishiya shuppan.

CHAPTER 9

Advancing the Notion of “Bonding Rights”

9.1

Fitting Bonding Rights into Theory

This chapter explores the argument—and proposes supporting theory— that the relationship between owners and companion animals should not be ignored in an emergency such as the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and that both owners and animals should be included in public support. The relationship between humans and animals has already been discussed in various ways in the theory of animal status and rights. Extreme anthropocentrism, such as religious anthropocentrism, is not worth considering here. For example, Japanese sociologist Tateiwa advocates human exceptionalism, insisting that humans are special simply because they are humans (Tateiwa 2008: 37–38). Environmental protectionism (Ecocentrism), which places the highest priority on the global ecosystem (e.g., Callicott 1999), has been accused as “environmental fascism” by animal rights advocates (Regan 1983: 362) insofar as it is human-centered and holds that human rights not be restricted due to ecosystems. The above two are excluded here because their discussions do not engage when considering the individual connections between companion animals and humans. Several theories are described below. However, each tends to be either human-centered or animal-centered. It can be said that a theory centered on the relationship between owners and companion animals has not yet been established. Accordingly, a theory—one that is especially applicable © The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_9

177

178

H. KAJIWARA

in the event of a disaster and that does not exclude the relationship between owner and companion animal—is proposed. 9.1.1

Japanese “Love and Protection for Animals [ dobutsu aigo]” Theory

As Iseda points out, the Japanese theory of “Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo]” emphasizes affection toward animals. As such, it focuses on the inner being of humans (Iseda 2015: 19). Even if this emotional theory were to be extended, it cannot escape its human-centric framework as long as its purpose is to foster feelings of human graciousness and as long as the rights of animals remain unconsidered. The theory advocates the “co-living of humans and animals in society.” However, the implicit premise—“to the extent that human inconvenience does not occur”—is hidden. Even if we extend the theory, it is clear that once a disaster occurs, the priority of animal life and the quality of animal life will inevitably be lowered. 9.1.2

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the theory that maximizing the total amount of happiness is morally correct. Singer, from a utilitarian perspective, asserts that humans should not be placed in a superior position just because they are humans, but that all creatures should receive moral consideration according to their abilities (Singer 2009). However, based solely on that premise, it is not possible to properly evaluate the relationship between guardians and their companion animals. Utilitarianism affirms that individual lives can be sacrificed if it brings about more happiness and greater good to a greater number. Thus, in a disaster, sacrificing “some” would be tolerated if it meant that many people and animals could be saved. 9.1.3

Expanding the Human Rights of Guardians

As a human rights issue, it can be argued that all people should be treated equally and that, under this principle, shelters should be prohibited from excluding pet owners in a disaster. At first glance, this theory may appear to logically improve the problem of owner exclusion and repression. However, here again, the animals are treated as mere property of the owners. Under such a theory, animal owner rights would have

9

ADVANCING THE NOTION OF “BONDING RIGHTS”

179

to compete with the rights of those who were forced to evacuate without other valued “things,” such as important phonograph records or books collected over a lifetime. In such a case, a guardian forced to give up his pet would be considered no different from those who gave up their records or books, which would be perfectly consistent with the principle of treating humans equally. The extension of the owner’s human rights easily reduces to mere human-centrism. 9.1.4

Animal Rights Theory

An expansion of animal rights theory could provide a basis for arguing that companion animals should be treated as individual rights holders in the event of a disaster. However, animal rights theory is, by its nature, focused on animals. If a disaster renders an animal’s living environment unsuitable (or what animal rights defenders might consider unsuitable), it may be easily concluded that giving the animal a better environment should be given priority over the bond between the owner and the companion animal. This leads to the animal welfare theory described next. 9.1.5

Animal Welfare Theory

If animal welfare theory were to be expanded, leaving animals behind to starve in a disaster or keeping them in a car for several months would not be permitted. Should it be determined that the animal’s quality of life could not be maintained by being with the owner, the animal would be moved to a better environment. Animal welfare theory is animal-centric in that it seeks to avoid any animal suffering. However, it does not recognize the unique personality of each animal, nor does it place importance on the individual relationship between guardian and companion animal. 9.1.6

Other Ethics Theories

Feminist care ethics holds that we must recognize complex relationships, including animal-human dependence and power relationships, and develop skills to empathize with animal experiences (e.g., Donovan and Adams 2007; Gruen 2011). Virtue ethics asserts that, regardless of the rights of animals, we should act morally as ethical actors (toward humans as well as toward animals), showing kindness and tolerance to others (e.g., Hursthouse 2000). Although these are more normative than the Japanese

180

H. KAJIWARA

“Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo],” emphasis is placed on the inner dimension of human beings. In extreme situations such as a disaster, what will happen to the animals remains ambiguous. 9.1.7

Animal Citizenship Theory

It has been argued that animal rights should include not only the right to live and be free from pain, but that they should further include citizenship-like status for the animals (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2011). Donaldson and Kymlicka state that we have a duty to protect domesticated animals since we have incorporated them into our society. For example, domesticated animal citizens need protection not only from humans, but also from other animals. We need to take steps to protect them from predators, disease, accidents, floods, or fires. In these cases, it is their status as members of our society, and not just their intrinsic moral status as sentient beings, that calls forth our duties of protection and rescue. (ibid.: 133)

While it would seem that animal citizenship theory offers the most promising basis for including guardians and their companion animals in support during a disaster, before the theory can be put into practice, a large number of practical issues would need to be addressed and a considerable amount of time will be required. The important thing is that the exclusion and oppression of owners and companion animals not be repeated in inevitable future disasters. There will certainly be a need for discussions regarding animal citizenship, the status of animals in society, and the value of animal life. Ideally, animals will ultimately be established as civil rights holders. However, as a pre-stage, it may be possible to include owners and companion animals in evacuation support by recognizing the bond between them as a “right.” The bonding rights described here can be defined as “the right of the guardian and companion animal to stay together.” Given such a right, human and animal, once partnered, could not be forced apart, even if the situation of one or both were to change significantly. In defining a new concept of rights, the external aspects as well as the legal and philosophical/ethical aspects should be presented in detail; however, there is not sufficient space here to allow for a full exposition. Nevertheless,

9

ADVANCING THE NOTION OF “BONDING RIGHTS”

181

new concepts or positions gradually become clearer in relation to other concepts, as described by critical realist Sayer: When confronted with a new philosophical position for the first time, it is impossible to grasp much of what is distinctive and significant about it from a few terse statements of its characteristics. Particular philosophies are not simple and self-contained but exist through their opposition to a range of alternative positions. (Sayer 2010: 5)

Figure 9.1 shows the relative position of the various relevant theories and their relationship to bonding rights. The theories are arranged in four quadrants according to their principal characteristics: Human-centered, Respect for animal rights, Logical and Emotional. Bonding rights are very close to animal citizenship, but focus on owner and companion animal bonding, whereas animal citizenship theory addresses citizenship for animals ranging from domesticated animals to wild animals as well as liminal animals that are “neither wilderness animals nor domesticated animals” (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2011: 210).

Fig. 9.1 A mapping of theories related to animals (Made by the author)

182

H. KAJIWARA

As a specific example of such a right, owners and companion animals would receive the same level of support as non-owners at public shelters in a disaster. Furthermore, when moving to temporary housing or reconstructed public housing, guardians and companion animals would have the right to live together without being forced to leave, and thus would receive support in the same way as non-owners. Although the practice of keeping pets is generally prohibited in Japanese public housing, the authority of the administrative government to either allow or prohibit citizens from living with pets needs to be scrutinized. Moreover, even in private rental housing, there are relatively few houses that accept pets. This greatly narrows the options for pet owners in the event of a disaster, just as parents with young children have fewer options when looking for rental housing. Bonding rights and the authority of the owner of rental housing should be considered, with an eye on making appropriate adjustments during emergencies. Especially in the event of a disaster, it would seem most appropriate to temporarily suspend the rules prohibiting pets or children from living in rental housing. A system could be established in which the local government or the national government would provide such housing as temporary housing for evacuees. Importantly, it is not only disasters that change the circumstances of owners and their companion animals. The case of an owner moving to a nursing facility serves as a good example. If bonding rights are established, it may become more common to have companion animals join their owners in the facility.

9.2 A Preliminary Response to Anticipated Skepticism Acceptance of the proposed bonding rights of guardians and their companion animals is far from certain and will require a far more discussion and refinement. The following are possible responses to anticipated objections. 9.2.1

About Bonding Rights as a Concept

9.2.1.1 The Details of Bonding Rights Are Indefinite Admittedly, the current bonding rights proposal is only a framework for the right of owners and companion animals to stay together even in extreme circumstances. Historically, various rights, including human

9

ADVANCING THE NOTION OF “BONDING RIGHTS”

183

rights, women’s rights, minority rights, and immigration rights, were not initially established with fine-grained attention to everything that could happen or with every detail finalized. In order that the hardships of the guardians and companion animals described in this volume not be repeated, a right positioned between human rights and animal rights is required. Bonding rights is a concept that has emerged out of real social problems. At the heart of this framework is the notion that the humancompanion animal relationship is individual, unique, and irreplaceable. It is the antithesis of forcing guardians to leave their pets behind in a disaster and saying to them, “If the pet dies, you can buy another one.” 9.2.1.2

If Bonding Rights Are Truly a Right, What Obligations Are Involved? Guardians naturally have a duty to endeavor to maintain their relationship with their companion animals. Although the companion animals enjoy the right to sustain their bond with their owners, they do not have any particular obligations from the point of view of rational consideration. 9.2.1.3

Can Owners Who Keep Animals Inappropriately, Such as in Cases of Animal Hoarding or Neglect, Claim Bonding Rights? Bonding rights are separate from pet ownership. Animal hoarding or neglect should be addressed by animal abuse prevention laws. Married couples, couples joined in civil union, and parent-child pairs have the right to live as families. However, due to conditions such as domestic violence and neglect, this right can be temporarily suspended or permanently lost. In the same way, it is reasonable to assume that bonding rights will be restricted or lost under certain conditions. In fact, in Japan, the problem of animal hoarding or neglect is greater in puppy or kitten mills than among ordinary citizen owners, as a large number of Japanese breeders keep their animals in extremely harsh conditions.

9.3

Bonding Rights in Practice

It is necessary to consider whether “human priority” is self-evident or on what grounds such priority is assumed. Companion animals live in society and have individual relationships with their guardians. Society consists not only of human animals but of various species of animals. It is reasonable to consider companion animals as already members of society. The idea

184

H. KAJIWARA

that “human priority is natural” adjoins “white priority is natural,” or the idea of “male priority,” “Japanese priority,” or “national interest priority.” During the 2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster relief and evacuation, animal owners’ rights were ignored or dismissed. Owners were commonly told in forceful terms, “Some people are allergic to or dislike animals,” or, “The facility becomes dirty when animals are nearby,” or, “Pets are not essential. They are hobbies or luxury items.” Owners responded at their own risk. If bonding rights are recognized as a universal right, efforts to deal with claims of human priority such as those described here will need to be instituted by means of on-site operation. In Japan, Aki Tanaka, who studied shelter medicine in the United States, and other veterinarians have spoken of the necessity of animal shelter medicine. The purpose of shelter medicine is to maintain the health of a group of animals and to transfer to new guardians as many healthy animals as possible. Maintaining flock health, as opposed to maintaining individual animal health, is a top priority of shelter medicine. In the event of a disaster, the veterinary group advocate operating animal shelters according to the following four principles: 1) Predetermine when to close the animal shelter. 2) The protected pets are triaged. Not every animal can be accommodated. Group benefits take precedence over individuals. 3) Veterinarians do not treat animals. They perform only minimal vaccinations to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. 4) In some cases, animal welfare is given priority over the circumstances of the owner. (Morisawa 2014: 74, see also Tanaka 2012a, b) Such a strategy may well increase the survival rate of the animals. However, depending on the type of disaster, this policy may not be particularly effective. For example, in the case of a disaster that causes multiple forms of long-term damage, such as the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, can we say that the owners and animals would be truly supported by these principles of operation? If such a policy were made known, it is likely that few owners would make use of the animal shelters, leaving only wandering animals to be treated there. In the questionnaire survey conducted by the author in Fukushima, many guardians indicated that they would not use the shelters for similar reasons: “I do not want to be apart from my companion animals,” or, “I am worried about how the animals will be

9

ADVANCING THE NOTION OF “BONDING RIGHTS”

185

treated.” Shelter management that aims to save animals but ignores the unique relationship between owners and their animals is unlikely to serve the true needs of the guardians and their pets. Indeed, this is why the concept of bonding rights proposed in this book is so important. Henceforth, the author will endeavor to clarify the outline and scope of the bonding rights principle and continue her efforts to refine the concept so that it will ultimately be embraced by the general public.

References Literature in English Callicott, J. B. (1999). Holistic environmental ethics and the problem of ecofascism. Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy. (pp. 59–76). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Donovan, J., & Adams, C. J. (Eds.). (2007). The feminist care tradition in animal ethics: A reader. New York: Columbia University Press. Gruen, L. (2011). Ethics and animals: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hursthouse, R. (2000). Ethics, humans and other animals: An introduction with readings. Oxford: Routledge. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sayer, A. (2010). Method in social science: Revised (2nd ed.). Oxford: Routledge. Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation: The definitive classic of the animal movement (Rev. 1975 ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Literature in Japanese Iseda, T. (2015). Nihon ni okeru dobutsu fukushi no rekishi [History of animal welfare in Japan]. In Y. Ueno & S. Takeda (Eds.), Dobutsu fukushi no gennzai: Dobutsu to no yoriyoi kankei o kizuku tame ni [The present state of animal welfare: To build a better relationship with animals] (pp. 17–23). Tokyo: Norintokeishuppan. Morisawa, M. (2014). Fukushimaken dobutsu kyugo honbu no katsudo gaiyo to kongo no kadai [Fukushima animal rescue headquarters activity overview and future challenges]. Chikusan no Kenkyu [Sustainable Livestock Production and Human Welfare], 68(1), 71–74.

186

H. KAJIWARA

Tanaka, A. (2012a). Saigai-ji no dobutsu kyugo o kangaeru: Higashinihon daishinsai kara miete kita koto, Soshite korekara no kadai to wa (Dai 3-kai) Animarusheruta to sheruta medisun: Dobutsu hogo shisetsu (animarusheruta) ni okeru jyuiryo [Considering animal rescue in a disaster: What we have seen through the Great East Japan Earthquake and the challenges going forward (3rd) animal shelter and shelter medicine: Veterinary medicine in animal shelters]. Clinic Note: Journal of Clinical Daily Treatment for Small Animals, 8(6), 63–67. Tanaka, A. (2012b). Saigai-ji no dobutsu kyugo o kangaeru: Higashinihon daishinsai kara miete kita koto, Soshite korekara no kadai to wa (Dai 4kai) [Considering animal rescue in a disaster: What we have seen through the Great East Japan Earthquake and the challenges going forward (4th) Saigai-ji iryo: Sherutamedisun no oyo: Disaster medical care: Application of shelter medicine]. Clinic Note: Journal of Clinical Daily Treatment for Small Animals, 8(7), 72–76. Tateiwa, S. (2008). Jinmei no tokubetsu o iwazu/ iu [Saying / not saying the special nature of human life]. In S. Takekawa & T. Nishihira (Eds.), Shiseigaku (3) raifusaikuru to shi [Death and life studies (3) Life cycle and death] (pp. 23–44). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

CHAPTER 10

Conclusion

The preceding chapters examine the experiences of guardians and their companion animals during and following the 2011 tsunami that hit Japan and caused the nuclear disaster in Fukushima. The following three research questions were considered throughout: 1. How did guardians and their companion animals survive the large disaster? 2. Why was the relationship between guardians and their companion animals ignored during and after a disaster? 3. What structures or mechanisms shaped the outcomes for animals and their guardians following the March 2011 tsunami? The story told in this volume emerged from data collected from twenty-five field trips to Fukushima and other areas hit by the March 2011 tsunami. Interviews were conducted with 53 guardians aged 30–85 (21 males and 32 females), 7 animal rescue activists, and 5 other individuals. The interviews were further supplemented by a questionnaire survey completed by 74 guardians from the Fukushima area where a nuclear power plant had been disabled and residents caused to evacuate. The chapters in Parts II and III sought to answer the research question 1: How did guardians and their companion animals survive the large disaster? In Part II, Chapters 3 and 4 gave detailed accounts of guardians’ © The Author(s) 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8_10

187

188

H. KAJIWARA

experiences of in the northern areas hit by the tsunami, namely Miyagi and Iwate Prefectures. Chapter 3 described Mr. Ryoichi Suzuki and his wife Yayoi’s life story in surviving tsunami with his small dog Baron. Ryoichi spoke his belief that the Baron saved his life from the tsunami. Chapter 4 outlined four characterizing behaviors for survive in which the guardians can be groups. Four approaches were detected: confronting the system, making alternative arrangements, returning to a destroyed residence, and suffering in silence. Whatever they did, they prioritized companion animals at the expense of their own quality of life. The chapters in Part III, Chapters 5–7, depicted the experiences of guardians and their companion animals in the nuclear disaster area in Fukushima Prefecture. Chapter 5 related a life story of Ms. Hitomi Sato. Her relationships with her cats, dog, and cows were disrupted when she was evacuated from the nuclear disaster area. Her home is in a radioactively contaminated area and she can’t return home still now. She continues to suffer from an uncertain future. Chapter 6 clarified three ways evacuees responded to their situation in Fukushima. Three frameworks were highlighted: evacuating with companion animals, evacuating without companion animals, and resisting evacuation. However, the guardians’ behavior has changed rapidly over time that each has two or three sub-categories. The evacuation behavior of the guardians in Fukushima was considerably more complicated than in the other tsunami areas. In Chapter 7, the factors of the complexity of Fukushima guardians’ behavior were considered. As essential matters when nuclear power disasters occur, the following three factors were explained: (i) the lack of information and the safety myths, (ii) the uncertainty of reconstructing one’s life, and (iii) the uncertainty of “scientific” discourse on radioactivity. Furthermore, the values that influenced their behavior were outlined as rural philosophy for the happiness of companion animals. Part IV sought the answers to research questions 2 and 3 namely, (2) Why was the relationship between guardians and their companion animals ignored during and after a disaster? (3) What structures or mechanisms shaped the outcomes for animals and their guardians following the March 2011 tsunami? In Chapter 8, the framework of critical realism was applied to actual research in order to uncover the causal mechanisms and structures. A critical realism that infers the invisible structure and causal mechanism (real domain) from the empirical domain and actual domain was effective in studying disasters, especially disasters with a large framework, such as a nuclear disasters. As a result, it was revealed

10

CONCLUSION

189

that “human-centrism,” the gap between policy and the site, and a paradigm for nuclear industry priority ignored and oppressed the relationship between guardians and companion animals that were more strongly linked in the event of a disaster. Indeed, one outcome of this model made clear in the testimonies given was that owners and their pets received little if any support from emergency services. In Sect. 8.3, the structures and mechanisms caused the phenomenon were considered. A major finding was that the way of understanding the relationship between humans and animals in Japanese society is dominated on the vague concept that indicates nebulous affection called “The Love and Protection for Animals [dobutsu aigo].” The dynamics of that ideology were shown in Fig. 8.1 in Chapter 8. To date, there has been few discussion about the rights of animals at the root of Human-Animal Studies (HAS) in Japan. The companion animals discussed in this book were treated as commodities of the pet industry, replaceable, rather than seen as “family.” Moreover, Japanese animal-related academia and animal welfare organizations are led by stakeholders in the pet industry. Therefore, economic logic takes precedence over animal rights, and that human– animal relationships can only be considered within that range in Japan. However, the findings presented above indicate clearly that the relationship between owners who have experienced disasters and their companion animals cannot be fully understood within the confines of economically driven models, and so their experiences are not afforded proper attention. The idea that a person’s complex and entangled relationship with their companion animal might in some cases be more important for that person than their human-to-human relationships is still inconceivable for many Japanese. And this is probably true of many countries throughout the world. In order not to repeat the situation where the relationship between humans and animals is ignored during a disaster, it is necessary to find the meaning of the actual relationship between humans and animals in society and reposition it. Chapter 9 examined the theory needed for social-wide change and made its proposal for remedy. In order to better protect the relationship between humans and their companion animals, a step might be to award greater recognition of “bonding rights.” Thereby, rather than simply conceiving legal protections for pets as mere property, attention could be shifted to the meaning and value of the pet-owner relationship itself. It might be helpful for readers to be given information regarding the treatment of guardians and companion animals in recent disasters

190

H. KAJIWARA

in Japan, providing perspective and the present attitude since this study. Since the Great East Japan Earthquake, Japan has experienced numerous natural disasters. In September and October 2019, Japan was visited by several typhoons. Consequently, that left over 100 people dead or missing in the areas including Tokyo. People from the affected areas are still struggling to rebuild their lives. Moreover, these typhoons greatly impacted pet owners: They were given little consideration, and very few shelters allowed evacuees to stay with their pets. In Japan, the local governments organize evacuations when flooding occurs. All residents must act in accordance with the instructions laid down by their local authorities (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications 2018). And when Typhoon Hagibis struck on October 12, 2019, 6.4 million people were recommended to evacuate by the government (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan 2019). Evacuees, which included many guardians and their companion animals, made their way to the designated shelters. The information about evacuation shelters was circulated on the Internet through social media. One celebrity caused a stir when she posted that she had not been able to go to the shelter because she has pets. Other guardians made similar posts. In Tokyo, one local administration staff refused to assist a pet owner, indicating that the facilities to accommodate animals were not available. Another guardian was told by the city office that it was up to each shelter to decide whether or not to accept pets. Although there were some shelters that accepted people with pets, for the most part each evacuee had to make their own inquiries, and the results varied. For example, in spite of a ban on pets at one shelter an exception was made, and a guardian was allowed to stay with their pet in one of the corridors. However, one weekly magazine reported on a man in his 60s who died after being caught in a flood from the Tama River after deciding that he, his two dogs, and two rabbits could not readily find a shelter that would allow for animals (Shukan Shincho 2019, October 24). Such accounts are from 2019. Clearly the situation has not improved for guardians and companion animals since the 2011 tsunami. However, the number of persons using social networking service has increased dramatically. Indeed, following the typhoons in September and October 2019, the Internet continued to function well, particularly when

10

CONCLUSION

191

compared to the almost catastrophic phone service that was experienced during the 2011 tsunami. In the case of the 2019 typhoons, pet owners in the Tokyo metropolitan area who evacuated or were considering evacuation were relatively young and much more adept at using social media. As a result, many became rather well informed about the situation regarding shelters across the country. What is the Japanese government policy regarding the evacuation of guardians and companion animals? The Ministry of the Environment announced “Disaster Measures Guideline for Pet Relief [Saigai-ji ni okeru petto no kyugo taisaku gaidorain]” in 2013 after the confusion caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 (Ministry of the Environment 2013). As described in Chapter 1, Doko hinan (evacuation with pets) is the primary approach taken by pet owners during disasters is the principle in Japan. The 2013 guidelines were revised in 2018, following the confusion caused by the Kumamoto earthquake in April 2016 when pets were again turned down at shelters for evacuees (Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan 2018). These alterations of the guidelines stipulated pet owners were not afforded additional rights pertaining to their pets (Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan 2017: 10). A main point in the revised document is that “self-help” is the basic principle guardians ought to adopt when evacuating with their companion animals following a disaster (Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan 2018: 7). In other words, such evacuees cannot, under current legislation, rely on local government administration to serve their, and thus their pet’s, interests. Furthermore, the revised guidelines clearly state that government officials are to give priority to the rescue of persons to be rescued but not to their animals (Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan 2018: 9). The “The Disaster Response Guidelines on Human and Pets” is just a rough policy document, with the ultimate response left to local governments. However, it is unlikely that local governments will deviate much from the guidelines of the national government. Very few municipalities are in line with the outlook of Mayor Koichi Kataoka of Soja City in Okayama Prefecture, who, following Typhoon Hagibis, stated that “it is an obligation of local governments to set up shelters where owners can bring their pets when they evacuate” (Mainichi Shimbun September 9, 2011).

192

H. KAJIWARA

The above discussion, in line with the findings presented in this volume, suggests that guardians needing to evacuate with pets should not unquestioningly follow on-the-spot advice given by officials. Even when advised that any one shelter has a particular policy in place, many found that the situation differed when they arrive at the facility. Invariably at that time it would be quoted that the argument that “Human lives are a high priority in emergency.” Certainly, every individual—pet owners and non-pet owners—has their own circumstances. Some people are highly allergic or have a fear of animals, while others simply dislike them. Moreover, it is natural that everyone in a shelter wants to be comfortable and safe. As resolving conflicts is not easy, managers at most shelters are reluctant to make extra “troublesome decision” when they already have to deal with other practical demands in a disaster. The probability of a Nankai trough megathrust earthquake or another earthquake directly affect the Tokyo Metropolitan area within 30 years is said by the Japanese government to be over seventy percent (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. n.d.; see also, Hurst 2019). When the likelihood of such a catastrophe is discussed in the media, people who are called experts such as animal rescue volunteers or veterinarians often comment that the owners of pets should train their pets to live in cages to some extent period. Some suggest that any potential problems regarding pets will be comparatively easily solved if shelters willing to accommodate guardians with their pets are clearly indicated, as though the few such shelters will be able to accommodate the large number of guardians needing such facilities. For people who love pets such propositions are clearly impractical. Even if a dog or cat can stay in a cage, it is pointless if there is no place to go. Furthermore, as revealed in this book, nuclear disasters are completely different phenomenon from natural disasters and thus guidelines pertaining to pets and shelters in such occurrences need further consideration. Indeed, the local shelters may be useless against radiation exposure. The Japanese government’s Nuclear Regulation Authority recently issued a Nuclear Emergency Response Guidelines in 2019; however, notwithstanding Japan’s experience of Fukushima, these latest countermeasures have no mention of companion animals, their owners, livestock animals, or wild animals. The number of Japanese households with pets now exceeds the number of families with children aged under 18. The fate of companion

10

CONCLUSION

193

animals in disasters is likely to become an increasing serious problem for society if no further action is taken to change society’s perceptions of the bond between guardians and their companion animals. If this book in some way contributes to changing people’s perceptions and improving disaster policy for the benefit of guardians and their companion animals a major hope of the author will be realized.

References Literature in English Hurst, D. (2019, Jun 12). ‘This is not a “what if” story’: Tokyo braces for the earthquake of a century. Guardian. Retrieved December 13, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/12/this-is-nota-what-if-story-tokyo-braces-for-the-earthquake-of-a-century.

Literature in Japanese Cabinet Office, Government of Japan [Naikakufu]. (2019). Reiwa gannen taifu dai 19-g¯ ooni kakaru higai jokyo-to ni tsuite [Damages related to Typhoon No. 19 (Typhoon Hagibis) in 2019] [Pdf file]. Retrieved November 27, 2019, from http://www.bousai.go.jp/updates/r1typhoon19/pdf/r1typh oon19_02.pdf. Cabinet Office, Government of Japan [Naikakufu]. (n.d.). Jishin saigai sotei sa reru daikibo jishin [Earthquake disaster, Large earthquake that are expected]. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from http://www.bousai.go.jp/kyoiku/hokenkyou sai/jishin.html. Mainichi Shimbun. (2011, September 9 Okayama version). Taifu 19-go hisaichi de no katsudo hokoku Soja-shi, Akaiwa-shi, AMDA chokitekina shien hitsuyo [Activity report in the typhoon 19 (Typhoon Hagibis) disaster area: Soja City, Akamine City, AMDA Long-term support required]. Retrieved November 16, 2019, from https://mainichi.jp/articles/20191026/ddl/k33/040/404 000c. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications [somusho]. (2018). Saigai taisaku kihon-ho [Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act]. Retrieved November 27, 2019, from https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/search/elawsSearch/elaws_search/ lsg0500/detail?lawId=336AC0000000223. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2013). Saigai-ji ni okeru petto no kyugo taisaku gaidorain [Disaster Measures Guideline for Pet Relief] [Pdf file]. Retrieved September 3, 2015, from https:// www.env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/aigo/2_data/pamph/h2506/full.pdf. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2017). Saigai-ji ni okeru petto no kyugo taisaku gaidorain no kaitei to ni kakaru

194

H. KAJIWARA

dainikai kentokai Giji gaiyo [The proceedings summary of review the second meeting for the revision of “Disaster Measures Guideline for Pet Relief”]. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/ aigo/2_data/saigai_guide/h29_02/h29_02b.pdf. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan [Kankyosho]. (2018). Hito to petto ni kansuru saigai taio gaidorain [Disaster Response Guidelines on Human and Pets] [Pdf file]. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www. env.go.jp/nature/dobutsu/aigo/2_data/pamph/h3002/0-full.pdf. Nuclear Regulation Authority [Genshiryoku kisei iinkai]. (2019). Genshiryoku saigai taisaku shishin [Nuclear Emergency Response Guidelines] [Pdf file]. Retrieved January 6, 2020, from http://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000024441. pdf. Shukan Shincho [Weekly Shincho]. (2019, October 24). Taifu 19-go Tamagawa hanran de yuiitsu no shisha musume-san ga kataru “petto 4-hiki mo chichi to issho ni shinde shimaimashita…” [Typhoon No. 19 (Typhoon Hagibis): The only dead in the flooding of the Tama River, the daughter says, “4 pets also have died with my father…”]. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from https:// www.dailyshincho.jp/article/2019/10240558/?all=1.

Index

A Abduction, 23, 162, 163 Act on Welfare and Management of Animals, 153 Actual domain, 33, 38, 86, 161–163, 165, 167, 188 Akita Inu, 69, 70 Asahi Shinbun, 11 B Bhaskar, Roy, 161, 162 Bonding rights, 23, 177, 180–185, 189 C Cabinet Office, Government Of Japan, 3, 37, 166, 190, 192 Callicott, J. Baird, 177 The Chernobyl Law, 147 Chikusan no Kenkyu (Sustainable Livestock Production and Human Welfare), 21

Critical realism, ix, 22, 23, 33, 34, 38, 86, 161–163, 169, 188 Cudworth, Erika, 7

D Danermark, Berth, 163 Deeken, Alfons, 86 DeMello, Margo, 6, 170 Difficult-to-return zone, 16, 102, 103, 106, 142, 147 Dobutsu aigo (Love and Protection for Animals), 112, 170, 171, 173, 174, 178, 180, 189 Dobutsu aigo senta (centers for the love and protection for animals), 12 Dobutsu hogo senta (animal protection center), 11 Doka, Kenneth J., 18, 86 Doko hinan (Evacuating with companion animals), 3, 4, 191 Donaldso, Sue, 180, 181

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Kajiwara, Surviving with Companion Animals in Japan, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49328-8

195

196

INDEX

E Economy class syndrome, 67 Empirical domain, 33, 86, 161, 163, 188

F Fukko-cho (Reconstruction Agency), 63 Fukushima, v, vii, 3, 13–19, 23, 33–35, 37–40, 56, 74, 91, 92, 94, 96–98, 101, 102, 104, 108, 112, 113, 115–118, 120, 121, 123, 126–130, 135–139, 142, 144–146, 149–152, 164, 165, 184, 187, 188, 192 Fukushima Medical University, 146 Fukushima Prefecture Animal Rescue Headquarters, 101 Fur baby, 163 Fuzzy new families, 164

G Gadenne, Donelle, viii, 19 Granovetter, Mark, 78 The Great East Japan Earthquake, 5, 6, 13, 18–22, 43, 63, 93, 150, 162, 173, 190, 191 Greenebaum, Jessica, 163, 164

H Hamano, Sayoko, 8, 9 Hansen, Paul, 164, 168 Hino, Kosuke, 15, 146 Hokensho (public health center), 12 Honma, Ryu, 145 Human-animal studies (HAS), viii, 6, 22, 23, 170, 171, 173, 189 Hurricane Katrina, 19

I Inokuma, Hisashi, 8 Intransitive dimensions, 161 Irvine, Leslie, viii, 7, 19 Iseda, Tetsuji, 170, 174, 178 Iwate, 13, 22, 33, 63, 64, 108, 188

J Japan Pet Food Association, 9, 10, 150 Jishu hinan sha (voluntary evacuees), 143

K Kahoku Shimpo, 17 Kasugai (clamp/clasp), 47, 61 Kato, Kensuke, 21 Kawaii ando kawaiso syugi (cute and pitiable principle), 170, 173 Kymlicka, Will, 180

L Lack of information, 138, 140, 188

M Mabiki (infanticide), 154 Meta-theory, 33, 161 Ministry of Health, 9, 10 Ministry of the Environment, 3–5, 8, 12, 15, 21, 101, 137, 146, 166, 168, 191 Miyagi, 13, 15, 22, 33, 37, 43, 56, 63, 64, 108, 117, 163, 188

N Nankai Trough, 3, 192 National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent

INDEX

Investigation Commission, 14, 111, 112, 138 Neutralizing nuclear reactors, 18 Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK), 146 No pets allowed inside, 21 The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of Japan, 14 Nuclear Power Plant One, 13–17 Nuclear Power Plant Two, 14 O Ozaki, Yuko, 9 P Pet Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS), 19 PETS Act, 19, 20 Potts, Annie, viii, 19 R Real domain, 23, 34, 161–163, 167, 188 Reconstruction Agency, 13, 63 Redmalm, David, 18 Regan, Tom, 170, 177 Restricted residence area, 16, 117, 120, 132, 142, 144 Retroduction, 23, 162, 163, 167 Rural philosophy, 149, 188 S Safety myths, 138, 139, 188 Sato, Shusuke, 15 “Scientific” discourse, uncertainty of, 144, 188 Self-responsibility, 138 Semi-structured interview, 34 Sendai City, 43, 47, 50, 57, 67, 73–75, 79, 82, 92, 166 Shiba Inu (Shiba dog), 73 Skabelund, Aaron H., 11

197

T Tateiwa, Shinya, 177 Temporary evacuation housing/temporary housing, 17, 20, 35–38, 43–45, 53–61, 64, 65, 67, 71, 72, 76, 78, 81, 85–87, 92, 97, 101, 102, 107, 113–115, 117, 121, 123–126, 128, 131, 132, 136, 139, 142–144, 147, 150, 152, 154, 182 Tohoku, 13, 14, 37, 66, 92 Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), 13, 139 Tokyo Olympics, 18 Transitive dimensions, 161, 163 Trivializing companion animals, 167 Tsunami, v, vii, 3, 5, 13, 15, 22, 23, 33, 38, 43, 47–50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 69–74, 77–79, 81, 83–86, 91, 108, 112–114, 136, 137, 154, 162–166, 172, 184, 187, 188, 190 Tuncak, Baskut, 17 Typhoon Hagibis, 190

U Uchikoshi, Ayako, 172 Utsunomiya, Naoko, 8

Y Yamaji, Kumiko, 20 Yamashita, Shunichi, 146 Yomiuri Shinbun, 11

Z Zone in preparation for the lifting of the evacuation order, 16, 142 Zottarelli, Lisa K., 18