RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/8/2005 2:58:27 PM

darkinshadows

Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

Sorry - I wrote quite quickly and I didnt really elaborate.

Lets see if I can come across clearer...
If someone has a pet, then I believe that you should be able to care for them and that means to think ahead. I have seen many pets returned or passed over to someone else for something as minor as 'not being able to cope'... and people don't seem to undersatnd that this can effect animals. So I do believe in forethought. If people were more responsible and thought of the future and prepared for all eventualities, then there would not be the problems there are.

That said, I do not place human life over an animal. That is my personal view. If I have a pet, I would have so knwoing it would stay with me and that would be that. Would I expect a person to give up a place for that animal? No more than I would expect them to give it up for me. Does this make sense? My children are aware that they would not be able to leave something they have taken responsibility for behind. They are old enough to realise and make that decison. Not many children are which is why I would never have permitted my child to have a pet they cannot cope with or care for.

Women and children analagy - by that I mean - I do not believe in it. And your thought was along the same lines(even though loosely)... Humans before pets. I do not see men as less important as children. In fact some children can cope better than some men.

Would I agree to placing an animal over a child? That isnt the issue being discussed in truth, that is something that you have mentioned specifically. The issue is, are animals worth saving? The answer is, for the sake of humanity - of course they are.

Take the child with the dog situation - the issue wasnt it might take the space up for another human, the issue was health and safety made by a couple of people only. It would and should have been up to the whole bus involved. It wasn't. That was taken away from them. The old lady with the cat - the decision was removed - not to save a humans life, but because people couldnt be bothered with the responsibility - and responsibility is ultimately what it comes down to.

Peace and Love

_____________________________

.dark.

...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 21

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/8/2005 6:19:22 PM

onceburned

Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
If someone wants to stay behind to die because because Spot isn't allowed on the truck, let them.

From what I remember of the news, there were cases of people refusing to leave without their pets. But there were also cases of people who made the heart-wrenching decision to simply turn their pet loose, to fend for itself.

During the actual rescuing of people trapped by flood waters in New Orleans, it was a standing order not to accept pets. This is only sensible. As you have mentioned people come first.

But once the flood waters receded, why not provide care for the pets? If volunteers are providing the labor, materials and space for this effort is that such a bad thing? Pets are part of a persons quality of life. Saving pets and reuniting them with their owners does have real human value.

But yes, people should be rescued before pets.

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 22

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/8/2005 8:28:43 PM

SweetDommes

Posts: 3313
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

I have to say that we have offered to foster animals until their owners can be found (and we aren't like some people who have specified that it has to be a pure-bred whatever or anything like that), and while I can honestly say that I would NOT have left without our babies (cats and dogs), I understand those who said "people first." My babies are mine by my choice and they are my responsibility. I don't intend for anyone to have to take on responsibility for them without much advance knowledge. Of course, our babies and we (well, Holly and the boys - I would have had to stay because of my job, I'm sure) would have been out of there at the first warning ... we understand the logistics of a city built in a bowl right at the edge of a very large body of water with a storm on the way. I would never refuse to take someone just because they wanted to take their animal(s), but I won't fault those who did either.

(in reply to onceburned)

Post #: 23

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/9/2005 12:37:23 AM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Thanks for clearing all of that up for me Dark~Angel. I had a nice chuckle about children coping better than adults at times. That is soooo true!

quote:

But once the flood waters receded, why not provide care for the pets? If volunteers are providing the labor, materials and space for this effort is that such a bad thing? Pets are part of a persons quality of life. Saving pets and reuniting them with their owners does have real human value.

I have no problem with people searching for their own pets after the fact, or even mounting privately funded rescue efforts in conjunction with the public effort.

For all I care PETA and the ASPCA can run "no humans allowed" rescue ops if thats how they choose to spend their own money. It's not like I can think any less of PETA anyway, and since a lot of PETA wackos are also supporters of the ASPCA, I could actually envision them trying to pull that sort of stupid stunt.

However, I take serious issue with the proposed law to force tax dollars to be wasted in rescue efforts on privately owned animals which would potentually increase the hazards for human beings in a disasterous environment.

Re:

quote:

The Humane Society is urging Congress to pass a bill that would require state and local emergency management agencies that receive federal funding to allow pets to be included in evacuation plans.

(See page 1 of this thread)

Such a proposal will further inhibit rescue operations in virtually any emergency in the future. Rescuing animals takes up valuable space in emergency vehicles. The time needed to save pets will further endanger actual people (of the human variety) who may die if rescuers waste time saving animals. Furthermore, rescuing people is dangerous enough. Saving pets places rescue workers in even more peril.

So, I say if you love your private property enough to risk dying with it, thats your choice, and no one elses concern or responsibility but your own. More power to you, and I hope you've stocked up on Puppy Chow.

-SD-

< Message edited by SadistDave -- 10/9/2005 12:38:54 AM >

(in reply to darkinshadows)

Post #: 24

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/9/2005 12:43:45 PM

sub4hire

Posts: 6775
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Come on now. Idiotic remarks like that have nothing to do with the issue. Since you seem to value animal life over human life, lets hear your case.

You made the idiotic remark. Also anyone who has taken psych 101 knows what happens to those who shoot animals because they are defenseless end up.

Or are you now saying you don't just shoot them to be shooting them?

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 25

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/9/2005 6:06:35 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sub4hire

quote:

Come on now. Idiotic remarks like that have nothing to do with the issue. Since you seem to value animal life over human life, lets hear your case.

You made the idiotic remark. Also anyone who has taken psych 101 knows what happens to those who shoot animals because they are defenseless end up.

Or are you now saying you don't just shoot them to be shooting them?

Okay, I've never said they should be shot just for the hell of it. Maybe you should stop taking psych classes and take a reading class.

It is not the governments responsibility to save privately owned animals. It is the responsibility of the owners of such animals to provide for their safety. If a pet owner wishes to risk his life to stay with a pet, that is his choice, and it is NOT the goverments responsibility to save someone who wishes to do that.

However, it IS the governments responsibility to save human lives in a disaster. Rescue workers working in extremely dangerous situations have very limited time and resources to do their jobs.

-If that job is hampered by saving frightened, unpredictable, and sometimes dangerous animals, then more human lives may be lost.
-If animals take up precious space in recovery vehicles, more human lives may be lost.
-If rescue workers are hurt or killed because they are taking more risks to save pets, more victims lives may be lost.
-Feeding and sheltering animals is a financial drain on emergency funds and resources which could potentually kill even more people.

Pet owners who put their pets lives above the lives of other people by demanding they be included in rescue efforts are risking the lives of other people in disaster areas. It is tantamount to murder in conditions where time and resources are limited to rescue as many people as possible in the least amount of time.

Which part of that don't you understand?

If someone refuses rescue efforts for the sake of their pet, I would rather see the animals die in a quick and humane way, than to be starved, poisoned, drowned, burned, frozen or buried. Since it's unlikely that every rescue worker will know how to euthenize(sp?) an animal in the field in a sanitary way, bullets are the most quick and painless way to get the job done.

If all thats standing between the life and death of a human being is a pet, I say let rescue workers shoot the animals to save the people. If a policy of simply shooting all pets on sight so owners will have no reason to stay behind to die would save lives, I'm all for it.

If it comes down to saving peoples lives I have no problem with killing an animal to save a human being.

Is that at all unclear?

-SD-

(in reply to sub4hire)

Post #: 26

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/9/2005 6:39:19 PM

sub4hire

Posts: 6775
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

However, it IS the governments responsibility to save human lives in a disaster. Rescue workers working in extremely dangerous situations have very limited time and resources to do their jobs.

You are aware some homes still to this day have not been searched for human beings, correct?
I feel the government should have some sort of solution or emergency call to action in place. Pets are family, that is the bottom line. Nobody should have to abandon their pets as well.
See what Bush did in Texas? They were allowed to take their pets. Why were'nt they in LA?

Thank you for the clarification though. I still see huge issues in the LA area. We need to get a government that works for all of the people, not just some.

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 27

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/9/2005 8:59:38 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sub4hire

You are aware some homes still to this day have not been searched for human beings, correct?

Yes, I am. That is why I find the idea of rescuing pets so offensive in emergency evacuations. I don't get that whole "Fuck the Joneses, save my schnauser" mentality. I think it is a line of thought that is morally and ethically disturbing. It is a sickness of a shallow soul that has no regard for the lives and safety of others outside of their own personal, self-centered world.

Apparently I'm the only person who thinks that though.

quote:

I feel the government should have some sort of solution or emergency call to action in place.

They do. For human beings. Pets are not human (Biology 101) and don't rank as the first priority. In fact, for the Federal government they don't rank at all.

quote:

Pets are family, that is the bottom line.

Lets see that statement stand up to DNA testing. Just because you feel your pet is family does not make it so. Your pet is property, like a Boston Fern. Boston Ferns are living things, but I have yet to see anyone advocating the rescue of houseplants.

quote:

Nobody should have to abandon their pets as well.

Then they should also have the right to die with them if they so choose without expecting others to risk human lives for them. No one else should have to be responsible for them either, especially as a government expenditure of Federal tax dollars.

Let me illustrate this point.

I own a cow skull that hangs in my living room. His name is Cecil. (true story) My cow skull is the family pet. Cecil is a part of my family. I've even heard my children saying goodnight to Cecil on occasion. Since my family feels that Cecil is a part of our family, then by your reasoning I should be allowed to rescue Cecil in case of a disaster.

Let me take that 1 step further. What if Cecil were still alive? As a pet owner, should I be allowed to force rescue workers to risk their safety to insure the safety of my family's pet cow? Should I be allowed to capitolize resources that could save human beings so my cow can live a long and healthy life?

Should you, as a citizen of California, be forced to spend Federal tax dollars to rescue my cow in Missouri while people in California are in need of Federal funds for issues that are only relevant to citizens of California?

I know this seems far fetched, but people all over the country have pigs, cows, goats, horses, and a huge variety of farm animals as family pets. Theres a family on the other side of town from me that have a pet ostrich...

quote:

See what Bush did in Texas? They were allowed to take their pets. Why were'nt they in LA?

That is likely due to a difference in the availability of resources. Also there is the fact that the Federal Government and State Governments are run differently. They have different resources and priorities. States have the right to enact laws and prioritize their budgets in accordance with their individual needs, and the needs of their citizens. If California chooses not to rescue pets, that is a state issue, and should be taken up with your state government. Perhaps the state government of Texas simply has better accountants who were able to funnel more money into the relief effort. Who knows?

quote:

Thank you for the clarification though. I still see huge issues in the LA area. We need to get a government that works for all of the people, not just some.

I'm really not saying this to be mean, but frankly, I don't believe that you do. What I do believe is that you have seen some very disturbing things in California and have formed your opinion on emotional responses rather than reason. I believe that you have passionate feelings about this, but you clearly have not looked at all of the issues involved.

Based on your assertion that pets are family, what you are advocating is that pet owners have more rights than non-pet owners who would not be allowed to take personal property with them in a rescue effort. In essence, what you are saying is that the private property of a pet owner is more important than the private property of a non-pet owner. You are advocating that it is okay to risk a non-pet owners life so that a pet owner can save his private property. Finally, what you are advocating is that pet owners in one state have more rights than non-pet owners in another state, for all of these reasons.

150,000 (just pulling a number out of my ass here...) pets dying in LA will not effect the ability for the Federal government to perform its mission. It will not effect the Federal economy or the defence of the United States. It won't even seriously effect Californias eco-system.

If 150,000 pets dying in LA disrupts the economy or state government of California, that is a state issue. Chances are that it won't. There are enough animals waiting to be adopted in the rest of the state to take up the economic slack in the pet industry.

If the city government of LA is disrupted by the death of 150,000 pets, it is a local issue. If I were you, I'd start there. Chances are that the best you'll do is get them to authorize the sale of magnetic stickers to sell with the proceeds going to a city funded animal shelter. It will probably be a ribbon that says "In Memory of Lost Pets" with little puppy and kitty paw prints on it.

-SD-

(in reply to sub4hire)

Post #: 28

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 2:08:48 AM

darkinshadows

Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

Ok...

quote:

Lets see that statement stand up to DNA testing. Just because you feel your pet is family does not make it so. Your pet is property, like a Boston Fern. Boston Ferns are living things, but I have yet to see anyone advocating the rescue of houseplants.

I am just going to be slightly fasicious here... By this conclusion then, slaves should be left behind as well?

Peace and Love

_____________________________

.dark.

...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 29

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 5:34:36 AM

pantera

Posts: 210
Joined: 1/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

It's not like I can think any less of PETA anyway,
-SD-

yeah...really- is not like this organization has any credibility left-

and I think we are confusing the good thing that is rescuing pets, with the idea that it has to be taxpayer funded-

it is a very nice thing to do, but it must be privately funded.

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 30

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 5:40:46 AM

pantera

Posts: 210
Joined: 1/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sub4hire

See what Bush did in Texas? They were allowed to take their pets. Why were'nt they in LA?

that's because Bush is evil...oh! and they didn't allow the people to take their pets in LA because they were black....and Bush is evil...and he doesn't care about blacks.... and the hurricane was his fault...he planned the whole thing...and he blew up the levies to get rid of the black neighborhoods....

(in reply to sub4hire)

Post #: 31

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 5:46:45 AM

pantera

Posts: 210
Joined: 1/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Just because you feel your pet is family does not make it so. Your pet is property, -SD-

This is true... they are consider property by the law- in divorces, litigation cases, etc- A person may view them as family, but that doesn't give them the right to take money from other people by force (taxes) to rescue them-

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 32

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 5:52:11 AM

pantera

Posts: 210
Joined: 1/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

]I am just going to be slightly fasicious here... By this conclusion then, slaves should be left behind as well?

Peace and Love[/center][/font][/size]

This is a good point DA- a good way to look at it- I think in the end it would have been up to the owners, but the good people would have developed relationships with their slaves, cared for them and would have taken them...

and for the other people it would have been the economic factor... slaves were really expensive, so I'm assuming they would have taking them with them as well.- who knows!

(in reply to darkinshadows)

Post #: 33

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 12:32:26 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I am just going to be slightly fasicious here... By this conclusion then, slaves should be left behind as well?

Since we've abolished slavery in this country, it's really a moot point. It's an interesting historical question though, since evacuations on the scale we conduct them today were not possible when slavery was still allowed under the law.

People lived farther apart, and travel was slower. Towns were smaller. Technology was extremely limited. Today, most people camp in more comfort than anyone could imagine back then. It was a pretty rough time to live by todays standards.

I'm pretty sure slave owners adopted a herd mentality in disasterous situations. Herds insure their survival by safety in numbers. The bigger the herd, the better chance for survival. So, if there were enough slaves to take the all risks while they evacuated, slave owners would survive. If they were lucky enough to survive with all their slaves in tact, they could re-build and life would go on.

That brings us right back to pets, doesn't it... Back then people did not rely on markets for their needs. Animals were needed to feed and clothe people. The family pet was often a hunting dog that helped supply meat for the table. Most house cats were mousers, and helped keep vermin out of the food stored for the home, grain in the barn, and the crops. All of these animals were needed desperately for survival and to re-build afterwards.

Look at the example of the old west. Most westerners developed a relationship with their horses. One could even go so far as to say they treated them as pets, but the reason they hung horse thieves was that a mans horse often meant the difference between life and death for the owner.

So, one could reason that the slaves of the "good" slave owners that pantera mentioned were probably viewed as useful pets.

Interesting question though!

-SD-

< Message edited by SadistDave -- 10/10/2005 12:37:50 PM >

(in reply to pantera)

Post #: 34

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 12:53:28 PM

AAkasha

Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

I am just going to be slightly fasicious here... By this conclusion then, slaves should be left behind as well?

Since we've abolished slavery in this country, it's really a moot point. It's an interesting historical question though, since evacuations on the scale we conduct them today were not possible when slavery was still allowed under the law.

People lived farther apart, and travel was slower. Towns were smaller. Technology was extremely limited. Today, most people camp in more comfort than anyone could imagine back then. It was a pretty rough time to live by todays standards.

I'm pretty sure slave owners adopted a herd mentality in disasterous situations. Herds insure their survival by safety in numbers. The bigger the herd, the better chance for survival. So, if there were enough slaves to take the all risks while they evacuated, slave owners would survive. If they were lucky enough to survive with all their slaves in tact, they could re-build and life would go on.

That brings us right back to pets, doesn't it... Back then people did not rely on markets for their needs. Animals were needed to feed and clothe people. The family pet was often a hunting dog that helped supply meat for the table. Most house cats were mousers, and helped keep vermin out of the food stored for the home, grain in the barn, and the crops. All of these animals were needed desperately for survival and to re-build afterwards.

Look at the example of the old west. Most westerners developed a relationship with their horses. One could even go so far as to say they treated them as pets, but the reason they hung horse thieves was that a mans horse often meant the difference between life and death for the owner.

So, one could reason that the slaves of the "good" slave owners that pantera mentioned were probably viewed as useful pets.

Interesting question though!

-SD-

All animals are not just pets. What about police dogs, search and rescue dogs?
Would a seeing eye dog be evacuated with its owner, while other pets were left behind because they were just "pets"?

How can you say to someone that their dog is not a service dog? What if it's a seizure dog? Service dogs are protected by law. In addition, a person is not required to identify what disability the dog is used for.

Akasha

_____________________________

Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 35

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 12:55:27 PM

darkinshadows

Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

I do believe that you have misunderstood my point.

Your statement was...

quote:

Lets see that statement stand up to DNA testing. Just because you feel your pet is family does not make it so. Your pet is property, like a Boston Fern. Boston Ferns are living things, but I have yet to see anyone advocating the rescue of houseplants.

Now, to centre on the statement...

quote:

Just because you feel your pet is family does not make it so. Your pet is property, like a Boston Fern.

By this definition, there are many Masters and Dominants in a BDSM sense (not as in people from the past, as I believe you have taken my question) - refere and believe that their slaves are property.

So, my fasiciousnes(sp?) is - then slaves ,as property, like animals and plants, have no rights and it is up to their Masters and Mistress to get them out of danger, not the tax payer.

Peace and Love

_____________________________

.dark.

...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 36

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 2:25:01 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

All animals are not just pets. What about police dogs, search and rescue dogs?
Would a seeing eye dog be evacuated with its owner, while other pets were left behind because they were just "pets"?

Police dogs and rescue dogs will probably be out saving people... Do you honestly think that a rescue dog is going to stay in a kennel?

When human lives are at risk, yes pets should be left behind if they are "just" pets. If rescue workers tried to save every dog, cat, parrot, snake, spider, lizard, ostrich, horse, fish, and ferret that turns up as someones pet, too many people would die.

This is pretty much what it boils down to. In a disaster, you have to be able to make hard cold decisions in an instant or people die. The more you play fuck-around with people, the more people die while you waste time. You do what must be done in order to simply survive.

quote:

How can you say to someone that their dog is not a service dog? What if it's a seizure dog? Service dogs are protected by law. In addition, a person is not required to identify what disability the dog is used for.

I would start with the phrase "Your dog is not a service animal."

Extreme situations call for extreme measures. I don't think it is an extreme suggestion that people be required to identify the animals medical purpose in an emergency. I would hardly say that requiring a little disclosure for the sake of rescuing more people is a violation of someones civil liberties.

I would even go so far as to suggest that the disabled be required to notify the authorities of the dogs medical use upon reaching safety as well, to avoid people lying about a disability to save a pet. Those that do lie should be prosecuted because they are risking human lives by tying up time and resources for their pet.

-SD-

(in reply to AAkasha)

Post #: 37

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 2:34:08 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

By this definition, there are many Masters and Dominants in a BDSM sense (not as in people from the past, as I believe you have taken my question) - refere and believe that their slaves are property.

So, my fasiciousnes(sp?) is - then slaves ,as property, like animals and plants, have no rights and it is up to their Masters and Mistress to get them out of danger, not the tax payer

.

You realize that BDSM Master/slave relationships are not protected under any law.

That goes back to people who "feel" that their pet is part of a family.

A Master may "feel" his slave is property because of a BDSM lifestyle, but in fact she is not. On a purely personal note though, I would have to wonder about the slaves state of mind in choosing a Master that would not rescue her in an emergency.

I can add such a slave to my list of people who should be allowed to commit suicide by stupidity I guess.

I'm glad it was a rhetorical question. ;)
-SD-

(in reply to darkinshadows)

Post #: 38

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 4:20:05 PM

luvdragonx

Posts: 388
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

This is interesting. What's clear from the discussion so far is that not everyone values pets as lowly as you do, nor human life as highly as you do. There are many people who don't rate above a sand flea on the value scale, and I would gladly leave them behind in favor of someone's pet.

Look at it from an ecological standpoint, at minimum. Hundreds if not thousands of domesticated animals and exotic pets could be stranded and left to fend for themselves. Should they survive, how does that affect the ecosystem? How is leaving them there any safer for rescue workers than securing as many as possible? Dead animals can carry diseases and parasites that pose a significant risk to rescuers and rescuees alike.

Would you put the convicted murderer on the bus before a 5 year old boy's puppy? Or the child molester before Fluffy, the 86 year old widow's only companion? Pets are animals that people have taken responsibility for. Pets are conscious, living creatures who are dependent on humans. Just because the law says they are property doesn't mean anything. The law says plenty about a lot of things, that doesn't make the law always right. But if we're taking the law as gospel and assuming it's always right on, you do realize there are laws to PROTECT pets and animals from mistreatment. True property - your watch, your car, your umbrella - don't get that same protection, because there IS a difference.

The situation in LA is terrible and there are no easy answers to the problem. But to say that allowing for pet rescue is the same as committing murder is off the charts, for real.

< Message edited by luvdragonx -- 10/10/2005 4:22:43 PM >

_____________________________

Never Without Love

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 39

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 7:18:26 PM

dekley

Posts: 56
Joined: 2/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I propose a law that allows rescue workers to shoot animals on sight instead of wasting space that would be better used for human beings during evacuations.

So now we've got thousands of dead animal carcasses lying around being infected with diseases and spreading those diseases to other victims, as well as to rescue workers.
Or maybe the rescue workers could stop their rescue work and bury all the dead animals, that is, if they don't get sick and die from all the disease first.

quote:

I also propose that this new law state that parents who do not allow their children to be evacuated because of the pet issue be shot on sight as well.

Great... Now we've got dead human carcasses to deal with too. More carcasses = more disease = more dead rescue workers. And instant orphans. Maybe the orphans will get sick from all the disease and die too, thus solving our problem. But wait, more dead orphans = still more disease = still more dead rescue workers. Maybe we could just shoot the orphans too.

quote:

All animals are not just pets. What about police dogs, search and rescue dogs?
Would a seeing eye dog be evacuated with its owner, while other pets were left behind because they were just "pets"?

Hey Akaska... this guy would shoot them too. And while we're at it, why not shoot the blind people too. The nerve of them having a seeing eye dog.

We're obviously not dealing with the brightest light on the Christmas tree here.

Dekley

_____________________________

Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened...

~Anatole France~

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094