some Katrina pet owners had a choice

From Animal Planet.com News


"As rescue operations advanced into the heart of the flooded city, trapped owners desperate for a way out were given a grim choice: leave their pets alive to possibly starve or kill them on the spot. Guns carried by rescue workers came in handy for those opting to put their pets out of their misery, said various news reports"


IMO any one of these people who were given a choice and just let their pets go to wander, as opposed to having them shot, should be shot themselves.

anyone seeing the pictures of the emaciated pets stranded on roofs etc, should be able to see why.

selfishness is all it is, if they chose not to have their pet shot on the spot. they can't bear to give them that immediate death sentence, yet leaving them there is a far worse crime.

Well, most Americans tend not to have that kind of experience first of all, killing an animal, and secondly, killing an animal that is close to them.

I hope you wore asbestos clothes today.

If I were faced by that choice, I would've said to myself "Well, if I let it go, at least it has a chance. A chance to find food, a chance to be rescued later. A chance to escape. If I shoot him in the head right now, there's no chance."

Here's a thought, why don't you take your September 11th beacons of light and your sanctimonious tragedy envy and play hide and go fuck yourself.

You weren't there, for either, I'm guessing.

You have no fucking clue what it was like or the opportunities, choices or information available. You have a blurb from a third rate cable channel. How dare you judge.

If you had the means to get out before the hurricane (ie, owned a car), why the fuck would you leave your pet behind?

And if you did just ditch your pet, why would you leave it tied to a porch, so it couldn't get away/scavenge for food/not die in the flood waters if they happened to reach your house?

well, i assumed (possibly wrongly) that the rescue workers would be doing the shooting, and also assumed (perhaps wrongly) they would know what they were doing.

as for the chance that they will be rescued?

you think this little guy has a chance?




most of them have nothing to eat, and only contaminated water to drink. they are roaming the streets in the searing hot weather. there is no chance.



[Edited on Sep 11, 2005 by Firefly]

Maybe it's naive, but I like to think that whoever took that picture had the means to rescue it.

actually that is something i have very much wondered myself.
photo journalists...........do they actually get involved? i have seen so many pics of stranded, starving animals. are they being saved by the person behind the camera?

I've heard more than a few reporters mention that they had adopted animals in their encampments at the scene.

that is some good news! those are some very lucky dogs/cats etc.

God I couldn't even imagine leaving my pet behind.
I tend to like animals better then people.
There is no way I could let anyone shoot my pets.
So I'd let them live and hope they make it.
At least I could tell myself that they made it and are fine.

Plus I know there are people there rescuing pets and trying to bring them to shelters.

They try not too.

And this link shows what happens to PJ's in New Orleans....they have problems of their own:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/09/hurricane2.html

I have to agree, I wouldn't have shot my pet if I thought there was any chance he could've been saved later or scavenged for food. Leaving him behind to suffer wouldn't be a pleasant thought, but I couldn't shoot it.

And there were a lot of cases (so I heard) where peoplerefused to leave if they weren't allowed to take their pets, and it was finally decided that if people were refusing to go rescuers could take the pet too if it was that big of a problem.

*applause*

i would just like to say that although i was not there in NYC on 9/11, my sister and her family were. they live there. i display that photo of the beacons of light for the very fact that they survived it.

as for the whole pet thing, perhaps someone can make me understand this choice.
are you just telling yourself that "maybe" they might survive, so you can feel better about your decision?

becuz at this point there is a very slim chance that they are gonna survive.

I think it's your blanket idictment of those in a horribly heart-wrenching position when they make an obviously heart-wrenching decision, while having no demonstrable expereince with said situation, that people are calling into question. No one is actively advocating killing pets or leaving them behind to starve. In any event, you are not in a position of any moral clarity or certainty to dictate to those in this position what they should or should not do. It does suck though - alot.

I don't really see shooting and murdering my pets as a "choice", but that's me.

When you say, "they survived it" do you mean they were actually in peril or just they were somewhere around? Because you see, when I say, for example, my friend Christina survived it, I mean she was carried out of the second tower unconscious by an anonymous stranger minutes before it collapsed. When I say my friend Jimmy survived it, I mean he broke his back and was very nearly paralyzed.

Those towers of light? I'm looking at them. Right now. I get that dubious privilege because I don't actually know if my house in New Orleans is still there. You don't understand either circumstance and you don't get to judge anybody sitting in your suburban home with five cable news channels. Why? Because when you're not sitting in a dry comfortable house with the crack reporters from Animal Planet on the scene, and are instead trapped in a house with no food, water electricity or contact with the outside world and rescue finally comes and you can't take your pets and your handing your child to a guy hanging off a helicopter, just about the last fucking thing on your mind is asking someone to shoot your dog in case you can't come home. To think otherwise is asinine.

A few articles I have read talked about how owners thought that they could go back for their animals after they were rescued. They had no idea that they would be banned from going back.

So I understand getting your family/children/husband/wife etc the fuck outta there to safety and assuming you would be able to go back soon if not to just get your animals and a few articles left behind. (each case being totally different I'm sure)

As for people evacuating before hand and leaving animals behind.
Noone knew the levees would break. Some people just thought it would be power outages at worst.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. If I dont it takes up too much of my time I could be hating people that I know for a fact should have death wished upon them.

you are right. i have no idea. i do not live in or near NOLA.
I apologize for assuming what i would do in a situation such as that.

i guess what i don't understand is the people on SG touting (with the information they know) that they would leave them behind for a "chance".
i don't understand that mindset. how can you see the pictures of those starving dogs and think your pet would have a chance?

i guess this is just an emotional reaction to seeing what the press shows me. i realize it's nowhere near the pain felt by the people who actually are there.
but as a human being, it gets to me. and yes, judging was wrong.

and, no, my family were not IN the towers when it happened. they were nearby in the streets full of ash.
i am not going to argue the point as whether or not i suffered enough to have the beacons of light as my profile pic

What I am having trouble understanding is you touting in your journal all those banners to the animal rescue site, if you think they have no chance.

You've said in more than one place here on SG that you think they are all diseased and dying and drinking infected water and have no chance of being rescued. Isn't that what this thread is about in the first place? You thinking that people had a "choice" and you don't see why more people didn't take the choice to kill their pets instead of letting them "die" and "starve" and whatnot. So why would you keep posting banners and links to sites that are solely for trying to help these animals?

And I quote:

"IMO any one of these people who were given a choice and just let their pets go to wander, as opposed to having them shot, should be shot themselves.

anyone seeing the pictures of the emaciated pets stranded on roofs etc, should be able to see why.

selfishness is all it is, if they chose not to have their pet shot on the spot. they can't bear to give them that immediate death sentence, yet leaving them there is a far worse crime."

Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Edited to add:

How can you post this in your journal:

"i cried today .........about something that didn't directly hurt me........first time since 9/11.


god bless us all"



and then in this thread say that you think that animals like that should have been shot to death, and that the people that left them behind with NO CHANCE, should also be shot because they are "selfish"?

Funny, it looks like to me that in that photo, that dog GOT A CHANCE. Good thing it's owner was selfish.

[Edited on Sep 11, 2005 by Cherie]

it doesn't appear that many pets are being rescued so much at THIS point for whatever reason. however, the pets that HAVE been rescued before this point, still need help.

that picture in my journal was at way at the beginning when pets may have had a chance.


my point is the people NOW who are being given the choice of leaving them or not.
these are the "hold out people", the ones who dont' want to leave their homes.
if they do decide to leave them i would think they would know their pets fate at this point.


[Edited on Sep 11, 2005 by Firefly]

I sat and watched a german TV show for 2 hours yesterday where they did nothing but rescue pets and animals. The animal people had lists from people in shelters with their addresses, and they were going to specific homes trying to locate the animals that were supposed to be there.


Just because you watched a clip on TV doesn't mean you have all the information.
There are lots of people working very hard to save animals. Instead of complaining about something you know nothing about, donate money to the link in your journal.

Trust me, other people love animals just as much as you do. You are certainly not the only one who cares about them. As for judging the people who had to leave their homes, that is plain retarded. No one would shoot their animal if they thought they could come back for them.








[Edited on Sep 12, 2005 by zwiebel]

Because I know my dogs a lot better than you do.