The question of evacuating/rescuing pets

[A-Possum]

Between the "bleeding heart animal lovers" and the "people first, d*mn the animals" ranks is the simple reality that many many people in New Orleans didn't leave because they knew they could not take their pets. And many left their pets behind with intense reluctance and grief, knowing that there was nowhere for them to stay or they were not allowed to take them when they were rescued.

From http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/09/katrina.survivors/index.html">CNN's headline story

"My mom told us we weren't leaving because wherever we went, we couldn't bring our animals with us," said Tiffany, who wants to be a veterinarian and mourned leaving behind the pets, including those buried in the back yard.

So this family stayed, then had to scramble to the attic (managing to save their dogs), watch their grandmother die there, finally to be rescued 3 days later by their brother. (They did rescue the dogs too, but had to leave them behind in Baton Rouge.)

Maybe there are others of you who feel differently, but I would not leave my dog to die under any circumstances, and lots of other people feel the same way. This is not "unbelievable," it's simply an aspect of being human. If I were forced to evacuate without my dog, and then told that she made no difference and would be destroyed because of disease fears, or because it cost too much, it would add to my pain beyond what is bearable.

Therefore, in the future, any plans for mandatory evacuations should include dealing with pets, probably both by having sufficient animal-friendly shelters, and for those evacuees who must be transported to shelters where animals cannot be accomodated, transport and shelter should be arranged for their pets too, by the humane organizations. This is being done now, but it should be an integrated part of any mandatory evacuation plan, in order to encourage people to leave. This surely includes the poorest people, because the size of your income has nothing to do with the size of your love. In fact it is even more important for the poor.

The humane organizations have done a great deal of work in the past years to encourage this kind of plans. Now is the time to face the fact that this is a REAL issue, and cities must take into account.

Flame me with "only people matter" if you will, but the people are suffering in this matter too.

[Merlot]

1. People matter, and their animals matter to them

People who have gone through enought heartbreak losing ther family and loved ones should not be forced to leave behind their pets.

Leaving behind pets creates multiple problems, such as gangs of roving dogs, feral cats, and over population. It ain't pretty, and a lot of the problem would be prevented if people were able to bring their beloved pets with them.

I for one, would not leave with out my pets.

If it is decided that people are to be evacuated first, then a second effort should be made to gather up as many animals as possible. There are many people trained in animal rescue who would step up for this task. And it wouldn't take away from the human rescue as these are two different types of operations.

edit: typos

[wildeyed]

2. Link does not work. n/t

[A-Possum]

79. Sorry about that, just see CNN.com front page

Editing period has expired.

[wildeyed]

94. Try this.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/09/katrina.survivors/index.html

[undeterred]

3. My dog would risk his life to protect me

and I would do the same for him.

[Booster]

8. And I know damn well my dog would NEVER leave me for any

reason.

[lukasahero]

52. My dog has.

I will honor that with my own life if necessary.

[shireen]

4. 1000% agreed, never again!

> Therefore, in the future, any plans for mandatory evacuations should include dealing with pets, <

Yes! I've been thinking a lot about that. Once the immediate crisis is over, we have to, with the animal rescue organizations, start lobbying for this. We have to make these people understand that animals are family for many of us!

[DELUSIONAL]

5. China (Communist China) ordered that pets be executed

I will NOT leave my furkids behind.

So you won't be flamed by me.

And I am thankful for the ignore feature of DU.

There's a great series of books -- "All Creatures Great and Small".

Its about a Veterinary Practice in the UK.

The Vet writing the book tells a story of how one of his dog patients was diagnosed with terminal disease -- so the dog was put to sleep. The owner then committed suicide. James Herriot the author and Veterinarian learned an important lesson that in effect he was the doctor for BOTH patients. And he learned that he had to be aware of the grief and attachment that humans have for animals.

My husband was a Fire Chief (volunteer Dept) for years -- and he and others realized that patients and victims MUST BE ASSURED that their pets are safe before they will relax and allow themselves to be helped/treated.

Some people don't have a connection to their pets and THEY NEVER WILL UNDERSTAND. And what's more they seem to demand that WE conform to THEIR world view.

For the people who consider animals as disposable stuffed toys -- there is no way I can change your view and I won't bother -- you are missing something in your personality DNA. However -- I will ignore your criticism of my attachment to my furkids and add you to my ignore list.

[Coventina]

10. I think even in shelters people should be able to have crated animals.

If they are in crates, and only taken out for bathroom purposes, and dogs must be muzzled when out of the crates, things would be fine.

[RiDuvessa]

84. I don't know if that would work.

I think you need to have people only shelters and animal friendly shelters. This is because many people are severely allergic to pets, especially cats. Living in a shelter is stressful enough without having to worry about asthma or allergies being set off by pets in the shelter.

[Mairead]

13. Beautifully said! You're right--the humans who don't understand the

love and commitment have something missing. It's like not having a conscience.

[TankLV]

54. You won't get a single negative comment from me - we are of one mind

on this matter.

[napi21]

6. Oh, you won't find me flame you! I am a volunteer rescuer for

Bichon Frise dogs...have been for 4+ years. I have 3 of my own, and 2 cats. I would NEVER abanadon my pets!!!!

Now, I have a car, and pet crates, so I would find a way to evacuate to somewhere I could take them.

I DOES matter just as much to those who don't have a car or a place to go and take their beloved pets with them.

I do understand it would be impossible to allow pets into a shelter like the superdome! Can't ya just see the dog & cat fights!!!!!

But there are many volunteer rescuers who would have saved most of the pets in all 3 states in this disaster, if they would have been allowed in! They weren't!

After the storm, there are all kinds of possibilities. X pens, that rescuers use all the time, are cheap, and create a fenced shelter for those pets.

It really is an issue that needs to be addressed.

As much as everyone in the US seems to hate Castro, somehow he has managed to evacuate people & their pets in Cuba before many (5 I think) hurricanes. Maybe someone should ask him how it's done?

[shireen]

11. you're absolutely right!

this is not an impossible task. It takes some organization and coordination and it can be done!

Now, the animal rescue people are super-efficient. The LA-SPCA got their animals to Houston in climate-controlled trucks before the hurricane struck! If FEMA had been as efficient, we wouldn't be crying our eyes out over the loss of so many lives.

Maybe the SPCA and Humane Society need to teach seminars on evacuation to the Federal and State/Local governments.

[Piperay]

7. I agree with you

I would NEVER leave my animals!

[elehhhhna]

9. I'd be heartbroken and guilty but would leave the pets if it was a choice

between human family and the animals.

An acquaintance of mine was basically homeless last year (briefly0 and had to put her dogs down (2 old rotts who were loyal to her ONLY--poor adoption prospects at best). We found out after the fact and helped get her back on her feet. She simply could not afford to feed and vaccinate those dogs. Sad, but not as sad as she & her fiance living in a damned garage.


Also, I would not want Buddy back if he'd been chewing on grandma upstairs in order to survive.

flame if you must.

[Coventina]

12. Dogs are carrion eaters. If you can't accept that, then you don't really

love them.

[shireen]

14. flaming not necessary

we all have our own personal priorities. You made your case clearly, and I see nothing wrong with the hypothetical choice you were forced to make. And I know it would have upset you greatly but it was something you had to do.


We need to create an environment where evacuees are not forced to make such heart-breaking choices.

[Mairead]

17. It's only a choice if you decide that it is.

When people see a choice, I always wonder whether they also see a choice between the survival of their daughter and their son, or between their older and their younger kids, or between their unimpaired kids and their handicapped kid.

I really do wonder, because the issue is the same.

[friesianrider]

23. You're right on the money.

I couldn't agree more. Choosing to leave my human relatives or my pets would be like choosing between a son and a daughter.

[elehhhhna]

36. children and pets are not equal to anyone who has both. period.

[Mairead]

40. Ah, dogma. It must be so comforting to have absolute, global knowledge.

It must save you many sleepless nights.

[elehhhhna]

41. do you or have you had both, simultaneously?

[friesianrider]

43. My Mom obviously has a child and pets.

And I know for a fact she would not be able to choose between me and her furkids. And I wouldn't expect her too, either.

[elehhhhna]

47. Right. furkids. So you'd what? Give up your seat for an animal?

edit to add: I felt the way you do before I had children.

[friesianrider]

50. Um...what?

And please don't bring in that I don't have kids. My mother and grandmother feel the same as I do.

[elehhhhna]

58. I'm explaining a phenomena I've seen in many, many women.

We love out companion animals soooo much, it's truly impossible to imagine anyhing deeper. Then a child comes and takes it all to another level. Not digging at ya.

p.s. I'm dutch and I LOVE friesians. My grandmother was one (the human type)

[friesianrider]

66. Well...

As I said, my Mom and grandmother are the exact same way as I am and they obviously have kids. :)

Were you born in the Netherlands, or is your family just from there? What part? I've always wanted to go to Leuwaarden (spelling?) for the stallion show...

[elehhhhna]

71. Born Chicago, family in Arnhem, near Amsterdam.

Went there to meet them a few years ago.

Check fares--they're relatively cheap, and hotels & eats outside Amsterdam are fairly cheap. The exchange rates are decent.

Less expensive than Disneyland!

[REP]

88. You Need To Meet a LOT More Women

Or maybe just a different sort of women. I know very, very few women who consider the animals in their care disposable once they've had a child. I know - some women *do* consider animals to be disposable, and I feel sorry for them (and their children), but they are not most women.

[elehhhhna]

101. i never said or thought 'disposable'.

[lindisfarne]

111. Love for your children still doesn't mean you can't get both your kids and

pets out. It doesn't mean that evacuation plans can't get both out. A better advance evacuation plan for New Orleans would have gone a long way to help. Plus, many of the animals being rescued were LEFT by people who evacuated in advance. Many thought there wouldn't be a place for the animals. We need to change this kind of thinking. (Many of these people had cars, too: I would have slept in my car before I would ever leave my animal behind if I evacuated for a potential disaster). Had these people simply taken their animals, it would mean the rescuers would have fewer animals to rescue and could get to other animals who are there because their owners themselves couldn't get out.

If I had been in New Orleans and I had kids and/or animals, I would have evacuated on Saturday - as soon as the hurricane was forecast to his NO. NO is a special case: it is on the edge of the sea AND underwater. Without a car (I don't have one now), I would have taken public transit as far north as I could and hitched/walked if necessary.

[A-Possum]

78. The point of my original post is that the plans should AVOID this

Evacuation of pets should be planned for, so that it's NOT a situation of "giving up a seat for an animal."

So please don't put that context on it. If that were the case then obviously the kid would go and not the animal. BUT that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about providing circumstances which will encourage people to evacuate promptly and willingly because they can take their animals, thus AVOIDING the entire scenario of "giving up a seat" because neither kids nor animals would be in harms way in the first place.

Get it??

Now, this may cost something in terms of effort and money, but in fact I believe that given the outpouring of donations for the humane rescues we've seen with Katrina, that the money side could be taken care of by private donations. What is required is government foresight and cooperation.

[wildeyed]

92. I agree 100%.

In this country, the role of companion animals is changing. More and more, they really are members of the family. Evacuation plans need to take that into consideration.

And as far as money, evacuating animals with their owners would probably SAVE money in the long run because more people would willingly self-evacuate earlier, saving on expensive rescue operations. Also, les time and money spent rounding up sick and traumatized animals after the event and trying to reunite them with owners.

[Cats Against Frist]

109. I'll vouch for her statement

-- and go one further: anyone who would consider putting their childrens' lives at risk, over a pet, is FUCKING CRAZY.

[TankLV]

56. Then you don't know shit - because children and pets are equal in my house

hold.

I would never sacrifice one for the other - cannot ever imagine a scenerio where I would have to.

[elehhhhna]

67. House on fire. 123 GO!

[Kool Kitty]

81. Cats go out the windows. Turtles go in my pockets.

My son, my husband and I are out. Quick enough for you? No one gets left behind. No one.

[elehhhhna]

100. That's ur plan, theoretically, but my next door neighbor's house burned

last summer. I had a key and was one of the first to see it happening--midday, no one home there. I ran to open their front door (they had 2 cats & a kitten) --didn't feel for heat first--got knocked down by rush of heat and acrid smoke, then regrouped and attempted to enter the house, calling the cats calmly, trilling "treat?" as they ALWAYS come running for that...and NOTHING.

Fire dept came, got the fire under control (started in the garage) and sent in 3 men three times (this was 105 degree day) in full rescue regalia--they found all three cats in about ten minutes! Parameds actually gave the kitten oxygen--he was the last out and when they broought him I basically collapsed on the grass, next to our dog crate (we dragged it out for the rescued cats)and sobbed.
Meanwhile my girls were bringing buckets of ice &cold water to the firefighters--one guy had heatstroke--

dunno why i had to tell this but thanks for reading. it was quite a day. cheers to the fort bend county fire depatment-they are heroes.

[wildeyed]

91. In our evacuation for fire plan, the animals are accounted for.

We take the animals upstairs to the children's room with us, then take everyone out by a special latter that attaches to the window sill. But the kids get out first. If I had to choose between the kids and the critters, I choose the kids.

[lukasahero]

53. Would you want Buddy back if it were a human "chewing on grandma"

in order to survive? Sorry but fact is people have done what they had to do to survive and animals will too.

And ok, dead dogs that the person who owned them decided would have made "poor adoption prospect" before even giving them a chance and letting the people who are skilled in socializing animals make that determination if it turned out to be true or living in a garage. Yeah, ok, I'll flame. Hmmm, dead or living in a garage. Which would you choose for god's sake?

[elehhhhna]

102. yes, i probably would want buddy back if he ate dead grandma, but no

more "kisses" from him.

The couple that put the dogs down had NO MONEY for their own food, dog food, and the rotts were 12 & 11 years old. They could not be trusted around anyone but their owner--and the garage owner would not let the dogs on the property once he'd met them.

clear now?

[The Stranger]

104. The need to pose human v. dog choices where no such choice exists

really indicates something wrong deep down.

There is nothing that prevents crating animals and removing them from the area as well, when their owners are rescued. People take bags of food or a bag of clothes -- let them take a crate with living breathing animal within it.

The human v. dog choice exists in the reptilian vestiges and most primitive areas of the human brain. It continues to rise up on internet boards where it does not exist anywhere else.

We do not compete with other animals for survival. We now dominate the planet and are eradicating whole species. Now we are morally responsible for their continued survival and prosperity.

[redwitch]

15. No flame from me

I am in total agreement.

[pitohui]

16. their decision killed the grandmother

i'm not flaming you but according to your quotes (the link is broken) they saved the life of their pets at the price of their grandmother

for me this is not a fair trade

they made a bad decision, and the most vulnerable member of the family paid the ultimate price

i don't know how the family will survive such guilt, i don't think i could easily survive it, we'll forget this story in a week or two but this will color their family dynamic for generations that they made such a decisions

there are no easy answers, sometimes we have to make a choice

and, yes, grandma should be saved before fido, what does it say for a family's love and conscience that they put the pets first

[Mairead]

20. That's not true.

There's no reason the grandmother couldn't have been evacuated. So why wasn't she? We don't know--perhaps she, too, chose to stay.

[friesianrider]

21. Exactly right. nt

nt

[pitohui]

22. because she needed to be with her family, DUH

have you been watching the same event i have?

if you didn't have family or friends assisting you, the treatment and in many cases abandonment of the elderly has been shameful

the family should have gone w. the grandmother, period, end of sentence

[friesianrider]

25. You're failing to understand...

That to many people, their pets ARE their kids in many ways (if not in all ways). You may not like that or agree with it, but that's the way it is for many people. If they chose to save their child over their grandmother, would you be upset? What if they chose their son over their daughter? For many it is like choosing between one child or the other.

More importantly, you are making wild assumptions based on an article that simply doesn't explain the circumstances enough to understand the exact situation. If I were you I'd reserve judgment until I got the entire story.

[lukasahero]

65. Actually, the poster is making assumptions they admittedly didn't read

Nice, huh? (Check the original post, it complains that the link is broken and they are basing their opinions on the few quotes posted by the OP.)

[Piperay]

28. Maybe grandma

refused to leave because she also didn't want to leave the pets behind.

[elehhhhna]

37. Then I'd have taken the kids & wished her luck.

[friesianrider]

44. Well, that;s you.

Some people feel differently and consider their pets as a member of the family same as a grandmother, father, husband, wife, mother, or child. :shrug:

[elehhhhna]

48. same? or easier to get along with?

[friesianrider]

51. Same, yes.

They are my family, same as any human member of my family. :shrug:

[wildeyed]

96. My relationship with my kids is different than with my mother

or my husband. I love my mom and husband, but they are adults and responsible for their own decisions. I am responsible for taking care of my kids and making good decisions about their well being. So when I hear people saying, oh animals are the same as kids, I kind of cringe, 'cause although that attitude might make you a great pet owner, it might make you a bad parent. If the needs of your animals and your kids are in conflict, the kids need to come first.

I do absolutely think that evacuation plans need to include animals.

The woman in this article did not choose between her animals and her grandmother. After reading the article, it seems that the animals played a role in her decision to stay, but mainly, she did not take the strom seriously. Also, she states that she regrets her decision and wished she had evacuated before the storm.

[friesianrider]

112. Well, then maybe it might make me a bad parent

Because I could never and would never choose between my human children and animal children. I can always hand my kid to a policeman and know I can reunite with them later and they will be safe. I can't do that with my animals.

Maybe your opinion is that I should never have kids then, but my opinion is that if you wouldn't be committed enough to make sure your animals are safe too, then you shouldn't own pets. Just how I feel.

[Cats Against Frist]

110. And some people think Katrina was shaped like a fetus n/t

[TankLV]

61. BINGO! I beleive we have a winner!

My grandma would have said something like that. "Go - take the kids and save yourselves. I'm an old lady and I've lived a full life already. I will take care of fido and rover. Don't worry. We'll be fine and have dinner waiting for you when you return."

THAT'S my grandmas!

[Piperay]

24. They didn't knowingly choose

to sacrific grandma, they thought they could all survive. I'm sure if it was a clear cut choice of grandma or the animals they would have saved grandma. I'm sure the grandmother had input on deciding whether to stay for the animals or to leave them behind.

[friesianrider]

27. You're right, and...

My grandmother (who passed last November, may she forever rest in peace) would have NEVER wanted to leave our pets. I would know without even asking her that she would rather stay and die with her pets than be evacuated and leave them on their own. Perhaps this grandma felt the exact same way (which I suspect she did, but I'm only assuming).

(on edit: typo)

[elehhhhna]

38. funny. my mom & mother in law would kill their pets with their

bare hands if it saved their grandchildren.

[Mairead]

42. Well, now we know what kind of families you & your spouse grew up in.

How awful for you both.

(edited to add spouse)

[elehhhhna]

45. Didn't say they had--but I'm sure they would. You have a better idea?

I am tired of hearing some posters here yammer on about pets when PEOPLE are still dying 12 days into this.

Guess it's a matter of priorities.

[friesianrider]

49. No one is saying that animals are more important.

We are saying that they should be considered in this tragedy, too. I would not "choose" one over the other the same way I could never choose my son over my daughter or vice versa. My pets are my family the same as my human family, and I love them all as such.

What *I* am tired of hearing is people who are so psychotically enraged at anyone who dares to give a flying fuck about animals in this tragedy. People are victims in this yes, but why do you lack the capacity to care about pets, too? It is possible to care about both you know.

[elehhhhna]

55. I do. I'm sorry my frustration level is high. It's simply that as a

pragmatist, the logistics of rescuing stray pets is a nightmare. In Chicago there are packs of roaming wild dogs in the CITY. I can't imaigne NO is any better--possibly worse because they get no hard freeze in the winter--

If Jonny Rooftop's dog has a muzzle & leash, or crate, and can be guided to a shelter that'll take him --wonderful! Let's not even discusss cats on boats. It's not pretty.

[LisaL]

60. Priorities? Yours seem to be screwed up.

[elehhhhna]

64. okay dogs are better than people. less complicated, anyway.

[LisaL]

68. Dogs are better than people. Dogs don't care about money,

looks or other staff people pay so much attention too. There have been many dogs that died for their owners.
And because of stupid FEMA rules that don't allow pet rescue there are people that died for their dogs.

[friesianrider]

74. That's how I personally feel, lizzy.

I think the only true beings in this world are animals, but that's JMHO. It isn't that my heart aches for the people in this disaster - it truly, truly does. But it aches equally for the animals, too.

[Bryn]

73. It is not about "Priorities" here

It's about making sure the law be changed/making a better plan so people will not be forced to abandon their beloved pets. *LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT LEAVE THEIR PETS BEHIND* This is an important point to note.

I have a service dog (hearing dog) named Shane. I cannot imagine being forced to choose between being saved, leaving Shane behind to die. I'd die with her first. She would have done the same. I also love my 5 cats. We should not have to be forced to make a decision that will scar us for life. Law in United States of America SHOULD IMPROVE!! Europe does better than that, did you know?

[friesianrider]

75. I am with you, Bryn.

I would much rather stay with my pets and die if need me - as you said so perfectly, I know they would do the same for me.

[elehhhhna]

76. The let's use Holland's model. In '95 they evac'd over 200K people

PLUS a million livestock. Pigs, goats, sheep, chickens, but mostly cows (WITH THEIR MILKING MACHINES!) The cows even got milked twice per day! 30 people perished.

Now THAT's disaster planning.

[The Stranger]

107. You admit you are creating a human v. dog situation BUT IT DOES NOT EXIST.

You have posed a pathological hypothetical where you would have to kill your pets to save your grandchildren.

Please get help.

[friesianrider]

46. Why is that funny?

And more to the point, I hope your mother and mother-in-law do not have pets.

[elehhhhna]

62. mom's dog died last month. it was devastating.

[meow2u3]

82. My mom used to joke she'd save the cats in case of a disaster

and leave me to fend for myself. She loved animals more than she did people.

[wildeyed]

90. Right. At the end of the story, she says clearly that she wished

she had decided to evacuate.

"I think I'm in shock. I can't even think," Debbie said. "I just take each thing as it comes. And I still keep blaming myself. I say we should have left.

[lukasahero]

59. "and, yes, grandma should be saved before fido"

What if it was grandma who made the choice? What if she was in excellent health and thought there was no need for her to leave? What if she was 95 dying of cancer with weeks to live and the dog was 2?

It's back to the Schiavo thing - basically, who the fuck are WE to judge what this family chose to do?

[The Stranger]

106. You assume that the Grandmother was not part of the decision.

As I have posted, there is this need to create a situation where animals threaten human life, and it indicates something wrong deep down.

[SoCalDem]

18. California DOES have shelters that accept pets

and special shelters JUST for pets..

STRANGERS park their cars and run up dirt roads to rescue horses that are not even theirs...

Our air rescuers routinely rescue animals from storm channels, and animals that have fallen down hillsides..

[friesianrider]

19. Some people just don't understand the importance of pets to some.

Even if they have pets themselves...often, many people just will never understand that when we say our pets are like our children, we mean it.

I agree with you on your OP - I know many elderly people and childless couples whose lives would be destroyed without their furkids. Studies have shown that people who are very ill can benefit from interaction with pets (owning and caring for pets has also been shown to relieve stress), so of course ripping pets from their owners after such a tragedy will have colossal negative effects on the people involved.

When I hear that story from NO of a young boy who had his dog taken from him and he cried until he vomited...it makes me absolutely sick. People involved in such tragedies should not have to lose their pets on top of everything else.

[Contrary1]

26. Snowball was located...

and is going to be reunited with that little boy.

[GardeningGal]

29. I agree. Future evacuations would be smoother if allowances

were made for pets. I will not evacuate without my pets. I'm single and don't have children, so I don't know if that would change my mind or not.

I've already told my closest neighbors that if it ever comes up, that I would not leave without them and I intend to tell my brother and sister next week so there's no confusion in their minds.

It's not an option for me. They come with me or I don't leave.

[lindisfarne]

30. We need to get the word out that people CAN take their pets with them.

Many hotels will waive the "no pets" rule in a (potential) disaster situation. Shelters will take your pets.

And if nothing else, for goodness sakes, someone can sleep in the car with the pets. (assuming you have a car, which in the case of NO, was not true for many).

Unfortunately, so many people believe that they won't find a place if they take their pets with them. The animal rescue organizations need to take this on (after they've dealt with Hurricane Katrina): getting pledges from hotel chains that they will waive the rule in disaster situations, getting the word out to the public that they can and should take their pets with them, etc. Furthermore, they need to work with the authorities who draw up evacuation plans to get them to allow pets.

In NO, it was arbitrary, whether or not pets were allowed on evacuation buses: some were, some weren't. Especially in the case of smaller dogs and cats, this was just ridiculous. (I don't know what the situation was before the hurricane: there were buses taking people to the Superdome, but I believe they said pets weren't allowed. In any case, the Superdome "last resort" plan was inadequate: it may have been the best they could do, in the circumstances, but had the hurricane directly hit NO, the people there very well may have drowned (Jesse Jackson made this comment on a news briefing on wwltv.com)).

Finally, the authorities spoke up and said they should be. In this kind of a situation, pets need to be allowed: they can designate certain buses as "pet" buses, and the people on them simply have to put up with the pets. Some pet owners with smaller pets were clever, hiding them in bags, etc. If they simply required pets to sit on people's laps, they really wouldn't have taken up any space a person could have occupied.

The boat and helicopter evacuations, at least initially, are a little trickier to criticize: they really do have space limitations, although even there, smaller dogs and cats certainly shouldn't have been that much of a problem (and many boat/helicopter pilots did allow pets).

There's a lot to be done to change people's perceptions. Hurricane Katrina was a very extreme disaster - in many other disasters which are not spread over such an area and aren't as devastating, people face these very same issues.

In the fires in Southern California in 2003, people were leaving their pets at home for the very same reason: they didn't think hotels would take them. Some pets died for this reason; most were ok - but their lives never should have been risked in this way. (Some pets died as a result of fires that moved so fast, people literally had minutes to get out and couldn't get their pets). Animal shelters were taking pets, but many people, once again, didn't know this.

[friesianrider]

31. And that as far as I know, you MUST bring your pets with...

Unless specifically told not to.

[A-Possum]

80. Great idea about the hotel chains

Having them pledge ahead of time that in emergency situations they will take pets.

What hotel chains have changed their policies for Katrina? I thought I heard that Hilton said they would take pets?

Anyone know?

[RiDuvessa]

85. With buses, we are not only talking about space

Some people are SEVERELY allergic to pet dander. They cannot be around them even for a few minutes without ending up in the hospital. Stress exacerbates allergies, so the people in this situation would be even more susceptible.

Maybe the point where people have to get on buses could have some sort of shelter set up so that people could drop off their pets and feel assured that they will be properly taken care of. Or maybe there could be a truck set up to follow the buses so the pets could go with.

There needs to be some sort of system set up so that people with medical issues do not need to be around the animals.

[KnowerOfLogic]

32. They'd have to pry my dog from my cold dead hands.... seriously

[japple]

33. Thanks for that one, Knower. N/T

[Mutley]

34. Absolutely right.

A life is a life, dog, cat, or human.

[Lecky]

35. I don't think you'll find many here who will flame you regarding this

topic.

I know exactly how you feel, I have 2 dogs and it would break my heart to leave them to die...they are part of the family.

[elehhhhna]

39. me too. if i thought they'd be abandoned I might put 'em down on the spot

myself.

flame away.

I have neighbors who have VERY poorly trained dogs--a few cases on our street--and although they love their pets as I love mine, there's NO FRIGGIN WAY I'd let their dogs on a boat or bus with my kids. Sorry.

[TankLV]

69. Hey, now that you've posted, I'd "put you down" too and save the

pets!

[elehhhhna]

77. how republican of you.

[bluedawg12]

57. Pets are family, and companions.

They may eat odd things..so do people. Ask the Donner party.

But, pets like dogs also work as police dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, cadaver sniffing dogs, seeing eye dogs, therapy dogs. They do it for the love of us.

Ask any soldier in Iraq with his service dog, or any police officer.

They don't do it for money- which is more than meat eating, anti-pet members of my species can say about themselves.

Here is a simple fact, Americans love their pets- and you know what they are better people and more human for it.

All future evacuations should include full family evacuations and sheltering.

[friesianrider]

63. Damn BlueDawg.

What a great post!

And a big welcome to DU, friend! :hi:

[lukasahero]

72. Best post of the thread.

Way to go and welcome to DU. :hi:

[Bryn]

70. Got Email from PETA on this one

PETA is on the government on this one.

"In the latest and most graphic display of our government's abandonment of animal handling guidelines in disasters carefully crafted with PETA's help years ago" - PETA

I haven't gotten a chance to read the whole thing since I am at work, but will do when I am home. www.peta.com

I am going to join in the fight so next time a disaster strikes, people will not have to leave their pets behind.

[bluedawg12]

83. Thanks for the welcome!

My animals have life, soul, feelings, intelligence.

I respect the little guys- they are family. This is a black and white issue for me no gray zones, and for 87% of Americans who polled this way yesterday when they said they would not leave with out their pets.

[REP]

86. Where I Go, The Animals In My Care Go. Period.

I would live in my goddamned car first before I'd abandon the cats I promised I'd care for for the rest of their lives.

Losing eveything you own is hard enough. Knowing your animals are being killed on top of would be unbearable, and it's inhumane to add this additional cruelty to people who have gone through something like the hurrican disaster.

[REP]

87. Where I Go, The Animals In My Care Go. Period.

I would live in my goddamned car first before I'd abandon the cats I promised I'd care for for the rest of their lives.

Losing eveything you own is hard enough. Knowing your animals are being killed on top of would be unbearable, and it's inhumane to add this additional cruelty to people who have gone through something like the hurrican disaster.

[mopaul]

89. grandma and the kids come first, then the wife, then the pets

i love animals, and i love my three kids and my granny even more.
if the national guard says, it's time to go, and no pets, the kids and grandma go before me, and the pets, well, if i can't take them, i'll reluctantly leave them, brokenhearted.

and people who love animals more than people, well, i see their point, but the cops won't. and any animal that drinks that water for a week or two is doomed anyway unfortunately.

i'm a bastard for picking people over pets i guess.

[peacebaby3]

93. So if you could only save one family member, which one would it be?

Grandma, one of your childen, or your wife? Which one would you choose?

[mopaul]

95. tough choices, but the pets would be doomed

"i'm not leaving without my boa constrictor", or my pet lion or my 7 cats, people are ultimately more important than pets.

one person on DU yesterday admitted that they've only donated to the pet charities, but nothing to the human charities. that strikes me as a bit odd.

[peacebaby3]

97. You didn't answer my question. Which one first? One of your children,

Grandma, or your wife? Which one would you choose if you could only save one?

[mopaul]

98. granny

so what's that prove?

[peacebaby3]

99. I wouldn't choose between my family members.

Neither would most people. I would say you would be in the minority if you could choose between your family members. And I seriously doubt you could. I think you are just being facetious because you don't believe you should have to answer that question. And you shouldn't. Many people who have pets feel the same way. We shouldn't be asked to choose or be ostracized for the way we feel.

Our pets are members of our family.

Oh and by the way, tell a bunch of people that you would choose grandma over your kids and see how it feels when they tell you what they think about you and what you believe.

You'll hear something like this...How could you choose Granny, who is old and lived a full life, over your children who still have most of their precious lives ahead of them?!?!?! Don't you know that is wrong? You must be unstable.

I notice you have replied and even started threads about how you just can't believe we would feel this way about our pets. Well, we do and I think you should stop deliberately trying to inflame people and make them more miserable worrying about the situation in MS and NOLA. We worry about the humans and the animals so why would you want to make us more miserable?

You have said in a thread you started that there is something wrong with us for wanting the pets rescued. As you can see, you are in the minority regarding the subject. Maybe it is you that should look in the mirror.

I have given to both the human and pet rescue organizations. Many people give to the pet organizations because they believe that many more give to the human rescue organizations. The human rescue organizations are also funded by grants and tax $$$ and the pet rescue organizations do not get that same sort of support.

I really don't want to get in an argument with you. You have the right to your opinion just as I do, but I do think you have gone overboard with starting threads, etc. insinuating there is something mentally wrong with all of us for considering our pets a family member and choosing not to evacuate and leave members of our family.

[A-Possum]

103. The ethics of suffering

I'm kinda sorry this thread got hijacked by the straw-man issue of "people or pets first?" because I deliberately tried to avoid that in my post.

However, even when it comes to making plans ahead of time for evacuation of pets, probably the same people who seem to be so incensed by the idea of saving a pet vs a human would fiercely object to resources being assigned to pets on the theory that it's taking away from the humans, whether that's true or not.

So I'd like to add something that probably will not explain anything to someone unwilling to listen, but will at least perhaps give the rest of us some understanding of why we feel the way we do, and certainty that we have a strong ethical and moral stance in our concern for the animals of New Orleans.

Animals suffer. They suffer as much as people do. They feel pain and they feel fear. Because they don't speak, because they suffer and endure in silence, it is quite easy for humans to pretend they are feeling nothing. The usefulness of this pretense is to escape the ethical responsiblity that any moral person has to alleviate suffering where they find it, if that is possible.

The conscious experience of animals in this disaster can be reasonably be compared to the conscious experience of a 2 yr old child. They have no language, no understanding of what is happening, but they have fear and they feel pain. The experience of drowning is no less horrific for an animal than it is for a human. To suppose that it is, is simply a lapse in the empathy that makes us human in itself.

Of course you would save your children first, and no one will blame you for this. I certainly won't. However, understand that this is not the end of the ethical story. Just because the suffering of a child is more important to a parent than the suffering of a dog, that does not mean the dog does not suffer equally. The existence of this suffering IN ITSELF creates an obligation for us to do what we can to alleviate it.

That is the impulse, the ethical and moral impulse, that those of us arguing for the rescue and evacuation of pets are acting under. It is a valid moral point. No, it doesn't override a parent's feelings for their children, but neither does that feeling render it invalid.

Suffering is suffering. If we can stop it, we must. Sometimes hard choices must be made, and then you move to the "kid or pet first" question. But the fact that the kid was saved first doesn't erase the moral obligation to come back and get the dog off the roof before it also drowns or starves or dies of thirst, experiencing the same fear and pain and suffering that any human would.

[lukasahero]

108. This is the whole point. Everyone should read this post and THINK

before responding to it.

If I could nominate it, I would. Thank you. Beautifully said.

[bluedawg12]

105. I don't deal in failure- I would rescue all.

That means, knowing that I have pets, I would escape early.

But then, I am blessed to be healthy and have the means to get out.

That's why my heart breaks for the poor and sick who love their pets -they should not have to make a choice.

Have you seen the videos of the elderly being reunited with their pets? The sobbing survivors and the wagging tails? Man and beast make each other better. We cannot forget our primeval ties to our natural past.

Can we not save pets and yet develope smart bombs, spend 400 Billion plus on the defense budget, and 1 BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY in Iraq and not save my entire family?

One more thing- this clusterf*ck thought me never to rely on the Feds for anything.