We're watching these rescues:how the hell much trouble is it to take Fido?

[DeepModem Mom]

I just watched a story on CNN about some nuns who passed on rescue because they couldn't take their animals (they've now been rescued). Before that, I think there was a man, on tape, at his house, who wouldn't leave for the same reason. Aside from the argument that these people, in the eyes of many, are wrong-headed, why can't they put the animal in the damned boat, as I've seen done watching some of these rescues. I don't see a huge detriment to rescuing more people (and their beloved pets).

[spuddonna]

1. Yeah, I wondered the same thing...

Can anyone who's ever been involved in disaster efforts tell us why they can't take the pets? Thanks...

[justiceischeap]

2. Because some people have about the same regard for animals

As Bush has had for the people of NO, none.

[Mairead]

8. Hammer --> Nailhead (nt)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

3. No cats are being rescued - they tend to run away and hide.

So sad....

[leftchick]

31. You will be happy to know

I saw a whole bunch of them in carriers that rescue groups had gotten. It was on CNN this morning and made my day.

[TahitiNut]

4. Understanding a "moral dilemma" might help a lot.

:shrug:

[skygazer]

5. I guess I can see both sides of this

As an animal lover, I know I couldn't abandon my creatures, not without a lot of psychological damage. At the same time, I can sort of see that if they're picking up everyone's animals, they're leaving less room for people and having to find more facilities to care for them.

I just don't know - it's a terrible, terrible choice to have to make and my heart bleeds for those people and their beloved animals. :cry:

[hlthe2b]

6. That might have played early on... but these are the hold outs...

Everyone else who wanted to go, HAS gone. Given that they are the last and chose to wait until everyone else had been picked up, then how doew that play?

And, there are shelters in MI that allowed them, showing that it calmed the kids and the population. Dogs are increasingly being used in mental health therapy, as has been recently published with exceptional findings from Jefferson County, Colorado Dept. of Health.

THis is plain and simple--wrong.

[Coventina]

7. This is just people trying to enforce a false dichotomy of People vs.

Animals.

As if it were an either-or choice.

Do you want to save an animal? By GOD you are a monster! Don't you know a baby just died because of you?

:sarcasm:

People seem to enjoy flaunting their lack of compassion.

:eyes:

[TahitiNut]

11. It's NOT a "false dichotomy" if people indeed see it as a choice.

It's a moral dilemma. What might be more productive is discussion regarding the alleviation of moral dilemmas in emergency response scenarios.

[Coventina]

12. Leaving people OR animals to die is not a "moral dilemma"

It's just immoral.

[TahitiNut]

14. Morality is individual, not collective.

Individuals are NOT absolved of moral choices merely because they're operating in some organized manner.

It IS a moral dilemma.

[Mairead]

26. It's a false dichotomy if people ignore other choices! Jeez, TN, c'mon

If there are three or more valid options and someone only sees two, that doesn't make it a real dichotomy.

[The Stranger]

27. What people have posted is that it is no longer necessarily a choice.

What might be productive is utilizing resources to save as many lives as possible and disabusing ourselves of false assumptions that animals' lives simply cannot be saved.

[TahitiNut]

33. I'd appreciate being given some credit for knowing much of ...

... what people have posted. I'd also appreciate being given just a little bit of credit for comprehending both "false dichotomy" (pertaining to the validity of an argument) and "moral dilemma" (an issue of individual ethics).

The individuals who are presented with the option of evacuating without their pet or staying and attempting to care for their pet are presented with a moral dilemma. I don't particularly give a rat's ass in calling it a moral dilemma whether anyone argues that they need not have been presented with such a choice, the fact of the matter is they have a moral dilemma.

Likewise, anyone evacuating on their own who choose to ignore or refuse to accommodate people needing assistance, rationalizing their 'choice' with any collection of 'reasons' that might include 'needing room for Marmaduke' are, in fact, dealing (no matter how ineffectively or ineptly) with a moral dilemma.

As I said, morality is individual, not collective.
Consider the people, if any, with two vehicles who left one behind and evacuated.

People resolve moral dilemmas in a variety of ways ... sometimes by 'going off the reservation' and inventing an alternative, sometimes rather bizarre. Sometimes, they just REFUSE to regard the alternatives, either through bias or through authoritarian influences.

I think we might benefit more by examining the ways in which we systematically (very much like "Sophie's Choice") create moral dilemmas that are avoidable - but not by those who are confronted with them.

Leaping into internecine personal attacks on people who structure the issues differently isn't helping a damned bit.


Here.
This is on "false dichotomy" - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
This is on "moral dilemma" - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/
Here's a site for a review of ethics and ethical systems - http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm


On edit: It should be noted that NOT EVERYONE regards an 'inaction' as immoral. In some ethical views, a person is not obliged by morality to act, and an inaction isn't immoral. Others (duty-based ethical systems) regard an inaction to be immoral under some circumstances. It's NOT a simple issue!

[NNN0LHI]

34. Why do you hate puppy dogs?

:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

35. Too hard to cook 'em.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: Besides, it's their own fault if they didn't leave when it was recommended. Right?

Thanks for the apt comic relief ... and the stereotypical DU "response". :-)

[demo dutch]

9. www.hsus.org is on the ground in LA and NO, MS they recued 300 sofar

so some progress has been made. SPCA is also much involved. Both are asking for donations, please give if you can.

[demo dutch]

16. Please visit www.hsus.org to read the stories & donate what you can

[DeepModem Mom]

17. DMM has donated, and I join you in urging others to do so. nt

[Barack_America]

10. As far as I see it, people w/ pets are being DENIED RESCUE!

I have to admit it, if I was in that situation, I'd do the same.

Some people realize that when you accept the care of another living being, you become responsible for it NO MATTER WHAT! I could accept the possibility of death much easier than I could live with myself if I left my dogs behind.

No one would suggest leaving the elderly and disabled behind because they cannot help themselves. Why do they ask us to leave our pets behind?

[pitohui]

20. no you wouldn't

most of this "not w.out my pet" is large talk by ppl who have not been tested in the situation

i have a duty to save myself & my family, and i have a duty not to put rescue personnel on the line to rescue me because i wouldn't leave w/out my pet

i had to leave w/out some of my pets in a prior evacuation

i didn't like doing it, i felt terrible, but i could not justify putting out rescue personnel who might be needed to help ppl more in need because i was too mentally damaged to understand that sometimes my duty as a human being comes first

another woman on DU has posted how she was given only a moment before the police turned her out of her home because of california wildfires, she saved one pet & left the others

she did the right thing, if she had gone in to save the others, she would not be endangering just her life but the life of rescuee personnel who would be forced to go in after her

if it's a choice between dying w. my pet or living w. my guilt because i had a chance to save myself but not the pet, it's just crazy talk to say "so i'll die w. the pet"

[Mairead]

22. "sometimes my duty as a human being comes first"

In my book, you wouldn't BE a human being after you did that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. I'm not quite as judgmental, pitohui

I think you ARE human, even if you leave pets behind.

What you say is right - we shouldn't expect ermegency personnel to waste their time with us while we fidget and argue, and we shouldn't expect them to have to deal with cats and dogs and cages and shit like that.

As much as I love animals (animals are more pleasant and rational than the majority of people), the priority in rescues is to save PEOPLE, and rescue personnel are right to rescue only people, and, sad as it is, leave the animals behind.

Where does one draw the line if we start allowing pets? Cats and dogs? Dogs only? Only small dogs? How many do we allow people to bring - just one? two? Eleven? What about birdcages? Snakes? Turtles? How about aquariums? Horses? Cows? If a rescue boat or helicopter isn't equipped with materials to lift and load a 120 gallon aquarium, can we sue? If I bring 10 dogs onto the helicopter, and one jumps out, can I sue? If I'm on a helicopter and one person brought 5 dogs and another brought 2 cats and 3 dogs and I get caught in the middle of a vicious fight between the animals and get bitten repeatedly, can I sue, or am I an evil inhuman fuck for thinking that I shouldn't be exposed to animals in this situation?

It just gets stupid - the best answer, the most ethical answer, is to say no to the animals and save the people first.

Nah, people who leave their pets behind so that the rescue workers can better do their jobs, and so more people can be saved, are acting in a VERY human way.

[tammywammy]

29. I second your post.

I love my cats, and I'd hope that if I was evacuated for something, I'd have the time to grab the carrier and shove them inside.

But, I can see the other side. In the busses and shelters, think about if there were a ton of animals along with the people. And I also know that some people have severe allergies to animals.

It's tough to think about, but really, it's humans first.

And as you said, if you allow animals, where does the line stop? Snakes? Hampsters? Birds?

[Barack_America]

36. Don't think so?....try me....

You have NO idea how stubborn I am...

My dogs are living creatures that depend on me. I would do more than die for them. I would kill for them. I happen to have a maternal instinct and conscience that rival all others. As I said before, I would rather die doing what's right than live without my self-respect.

I am lucky not to have human children, I admit that would complicate the situation.

As for the people left behind now. Most everyone else is gone and these boats would rather come back empty than allow pets. There are animal rescue groups in NO who will help with these pets. Rescuers are leaving people behind rather than take pets on board or contact someone who will. People's lives are being endangered by this ridiculous policy.

[tedzbear]

13. I know I would refuse to leave my 2 cats.

They are my children, for gods sake. They would have to drag me away screaming...


correction:sp

[lse7581011]

15. I Agree!

I wouldn't go without by "babies" either!

[LostinVA]

24. Agreed... please don't speak for us

I respect your decision and feelings,m please respect ours. I have been in several hurricanes, two extremely bad ones, and never went to a shelter because of my animals. I knew what I was doing. They are my fur babies. When we on DU say that, we are saying they are literally our adopted kids.

[Spike from MN]

18. Well, if the dogs are poor and/or black

then yeah, they shouldn't be rescued. :sarcasm:

If I had a pet, there is no way I would evacuate unless I was allowed to take the pet with me. That's just the way it is.

[pitohui]

19. this is why it doesn't work

some pets esp. dogs are aggressive around other animals, there would be fights, there would be a public hazard

imagine the horror in the convention center described by charmaine neville, now imagine on top of all that if dogs were set on her or other victims there

another thing--

some of us have severe respiratory or allergic issues, yr cat would kill some of us in a closed area after a couple of days

ppl w/ combined pet allergy & asthma can actually have a heart attack & die, it is not a matter of just putting a person in a situation where their eyes continue to swell & they can't breathe, i already fully understand that those w.out allergy or asthma do not care abt the pain they inflict on others if it interferes w. them going where they please w. their pets

but it is a matter of ppl w. severe asthma symptoms can die if overstressed by heat or cold and their allergen on top of it

sorry

i have pets too, after careful testing to be sure my health would not be affected, but it's my responsibility to either be able to evacuate my pets or to put human life first & leave them behind in emergency

[Coventina]

21. The solution is "pet friendly" shelters and "no pet" shelters

If you have a pet, you go to a shelter that has pets.

If you allergic or are afraid of dogs then you go to a "pet free" shelter.

[Mairead]

23. Exactly. There's no need to create false dichotomies. (nt)

[LostinVA]

25. They have proven that pets in shelters

Actually has a CALMING effect, esp. on children, and that it is extremely rare for fights to break out, esp. if the dogs are muzzled.

[pitohui]

30. who is they?

unproven assertion, this they you mention do they have a name?

i'm very animal savvy, i used to work w. animals, & i have been attacked by a large dog while minding my own business

i cannot imagine a situation where unknown numbers of large dogs, who have been subject to unknown training or in some cases no training, would be anything but a danger to small women & children in a shelter of last resort

a service animal that we know has been subject to careful training is a different matter than the undisciplined pit bull or 3 of some 5th grade drop-out

also--

i notice the decidedly non-calming effects of forcing asthmatics and those w. respiratory illness into close contacts w. unknown animals was simply ignored

oh, i guess you're right, if i'm dead, then i guess i *am* pretty calm

sorry

yr pet does not belong in a public shelter where the sick, the elderly, the asthmatic must also be housed

do you know the rate of asthma in the inner city?

it is astounding!

[leftchick]

32. Good News FRom CNN This Morning. The Rescue Groups are IN!

They had been refusing to let them in until sometime Sunday I believe. I was still worried yesterday that they in fact were not. I am so sickened by people going by dogs in trees and on roofs in their boats and not picking them up.

On CNN this morning they did a segment on the HUNDREDS of animal rescuers now in the area. I saw a lot of dogs and cats being saved.

IT would be very simple to rescue the folks with their animals and if they can't take them to a shelter they can leave them with one of the groups until they are able to retrieve them. That would save Human and animal lives.

Apparently the einsteins in charge have not figured that one out. :(

[patcox2]

37. Too much trouble. Any trouble is too much trouble if people are waiting.

People shouldn't keep pets anyway. And caring about stupid animals when people are dying is a mental illness.

[Barack_America]

39. A mental illness called COMPASSION!!!

Fortunately, it doesn't sound like you are afflicted.

By the way, nobody's left in NO. Boats would rather come back empty than allow pets.

[Mutley]

38. I understand that they are not going to sacrifice a human for a dog...

and the problems that pets can cause in these situations which have been described in great detail above, but knowing that there are people who will not leave without their pets, why can't they provide other options? Like pet-friendly buses and shelters?

Why is it that human life is deemed more important than animal life? Because we speak? Because we reason? My dogs are more caring and compassionate than many people I've met, and I can guarantee that if I had to chose between saving Bush (or Hitler, or Stalin, or any number of awful evil fucks from history) and saving my dogs, my dogs would win every single time.

And before anyone says it, no I would not let any child die to save my dogs. But I would risk my own life to save my dogs, and I would not leave without them.