I could not agree more. If the situation ever arose, I would send my two-legged family members into safety and remain behind with my furkids. I don't think I could live with myself if anything happened to them. They are totally defenseless against human cruelty and the forces of nature.
What about your finkids? Would you stay behind to to protect a gold fish? How-bout the kids Ant Farm, gerbils, pet mice?
Remaining behind just puts some coastgardsman at risk to have to come and rescue you. Don't tell me you wouldn't be up on your roof waving your arms just because you CHOSE to stay back.
If you can't afford your own transportation for your family AND your pets, you got no business owning pets and imposing the cost/burden on society for the rescue of same.
Sorry if this seems heartless. A dog takes as much room in a shelter or a chopper as a child.
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