Posted on 09/22/2005 1:03:57 PM PDT by cwiz24
I guess you posted the key word here: RESPONSIBILITY, individual responsibility, that is. Not Daddy Government's responsibility!
I suppose a constitutional amendment is in order to allow animals to vote.
Now see you have a plan, at least it is an idea. I don't see why it has to be just leave all the animals to die
Most of the serious breeders and pet owners etc (dogs, cats, birds) have their own cages, food containers etc for evacuations.
I see both sides of this, and my 'zoo' is one of the reasons I won't ever evacuate (reason #1 you're seeing on the highways out of Houston).
With that being said, the world has changed. More and more people are attached to their animals like never before. We can grouse and moan about it, but bottom line, it's something that now has to be taken into consideration in an evac. Segregate if necessary.
But I tell ya now, I'd rather be hunkered down with the animal folk that the ones who left Fluffy chained to the back fence >:>
I'm amazed how many people agree with this lame-brained idea. It is, to be blunt, dumb.
Look, I love my pets too. And if I'm evacuating on my own, of course I'll take them with me. But if I had to take, say, another family as well (maybe their car broke, whatever...) the pets stay behind.
And in a rescue mission, the rescuers better be going after people. Pets are probably not at their best behaved during something like that, and it'll get worse if you get multiple pets. And then try to keep them in close quarters...
This is a hideous idea all around, and captures the current award for "feel-good legislation."
Drew Garrett
"But I tell ya now, I'd rather be hunkered down with the animal folk that the ones who left Fluffy chained to the back fence"
Me too!
Sorry if this seems heartless. A dog takes as much room in a shelter or a chopper as a child.
I suspect you're going to lose this argument. The legislation says the funding is contingent upon state and local governments working these arrangements out. That means planning.
You are not going to dictate to people whether they can or cannot own pets, and governments are going to have to figure out how to deal with this situation.
Besides, nobody said anything about putting animals in shelters for people. The Baton Rouge shelter accepts people with pets, but hands them off to the Louisiana SPCA, where they are cared for.
Why can somebody take a big bag of mementoes, but a little kid can't take a kitten?
Well, I see your point. But, what about the people who do stay behind because of their pets alone? How should that be handled?
Yes they have, when they refuse to recognize the role pets play in some people's lives. Seniors, children, and me, for instance, value pets as members of the family and would stay behind and die rather than leave any member of the family behind.
If the respective levels of government don't want to deal with that reality, they will continue to encounter people who will not evacuate, even when ordered to.
Now, those people (like me) could be left to die, and not be rescued, since I refused to leave in the first place.
But I would never vote for a politician who would do that, and I suspect there are millions of others like me.
So, it's likely this legislation is going to pass, overwhelmingly.
Hey!! Lantos!!!! DGSOS!!!!!!!
By all means, take the pets. If rations run short they might make an extra meal.
This cycle of increased hurricanes may last ten to twenty years, so maybe it's time for people in at-risk areas to rethink long-range plans.
Why the heck do we need federal legislation to replace common sense?
I think it's idiotic. Many states - such as Florida - have shelters that accept pets and this is announced by officials. Pet owners can decide how important this is to them, but the rest of the world shouldn't have to wait while they "rescue" their pets and then put up with these pets in the limited shelter space. Sorry, guys, but the important thing is to save the people first.
The other point - most of the time, you're not evacuated for a very long time. Leave food and water and your pets will be fine. If not, animals are usually better than people at surviving. Your pet may outlive you.
As for larger pets, the big problem is that they tend to escape and their owners can't be found later. Have your horse chipped. Or do the simple Florida trick and paint your phone number on his side.
Ever been to escape and evasion school? You learn that you can eat just about anything.
Some of those are easy. A spider, mouse, gerbil, or small turtle can be put in a Tupperware container, and an emergency supply of whatever it eats in a ziplock bag. It's big pets that cause the most problems, particularly those that bite and/or poop all over the landscape (e.g., dogs).
The problem, as I see it, came in the initial stages, when no one was allowed to take their animals because of the frenetic nature of the evacuations. Pets were ripped from the arms of children, and dogs which could have sat in a lap were left behind.
A few days later, animals were regularly taken out with evacuees.
I understand the exigencies of these situations, but pet owners were appalled at the arbitrariness of the evacuation decisions.
Obviously, this can be worked out, as we are witnessing in Texas and have witnessed in NO. Perhaps just the mere threat of such legislation will be enough to force local officials to form some kind of policy that will allow evacuees to at least take their small domestic pets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.