Heartless bastard

[ntang]

I may be marking myself as a heartless bastard here (and pissing off the few people that I haven't pissed off yet), but I'll come out and say it, anyways:

Fuck the pets.

I appreciate that many people have many pets they care deeply about. I realize that for some people, you know, their pets may be as close as they have to children. But I just read a PETA ad that complained that "Federal authorities are forcing many evacuees to choose between bringing vital medicine and their dog."

Yeah... and?

Sorry, but saving peoples' lives has to come before saving the lives of their pets. Considering we are still losing people every day to Katrina and our government's incompetency on multiple levels (primarily in the leadership, to be fair), you know, we really shouldn't be worrying too much about the pets. When all of the people have been reasonably accounted for, then by all means, save the pets - but until then, the people have to come first. I've had pets, and I loved them, but having had both pets and children, I can say that there's honestly no comparison. It's not even close. It's a terrible decision to have to make, and I don't want to sound flippant - I understand that, I have some idea of how painful it is. I lost pets before, and I'm not ashamed to say I cried at their loss. But what I am saying is that I think that, terrible or not, there are limited resources and we have to make tough decisions, and the right thing to do is to save the people first. I don't envy anyone who has to make that decision - or enforce it - but I do think it's clearly the right one.

Comments

[offbalance.livejournal.com]

Amen.

[bride.livejournal.com]

THANK you. AAAARGH.

[stacyinthecity.livejournal.com]

I can understand that there may be either or situations, and I appreciate that, and believe that the person should be saved over the pet. OF COURSE.

But really, the problem is WHY is the a choice between medicine and pets? If it is a question of space or time, I can understand, but if it is some arbitrary rule, THAT I have a DEFINATE problem with.

And I reserve the right to change my mind should I face a real emergency, but at this point in time, I can't imagine leaving them for dead. I'd die with them if I couldn't get out with them.

[ntang.livejournal.com]

Well, my guess is because medicine fits in a pocket and doesn't require food, water, or a place to dispose of waste. I mean, right now, there are still people they're struggling to get food and clean water to, and until that sort of thing has stopped, I completely understand (and agree with) the decision to make people leave pets behind for now. Again, I don't know the circumstances - and from what I've heard it's possible it's just people being bastards - but that's what I'd guess.

[stacyinthecity.livejournal.com]

see, that doesn't make sense. If they only have room for something that fits in the pocket, why is there a choice? Why is it not "look, we don't have room for the pet. All we have room for is a bottle of pills that fits in your pocket."

The choice doesn't make sense.

From what I've heard, a lot of it was senseless and arbitrary. "No pets on the bus!" "What if I hold my little dog on my lap?" "NO! Your dog must stay behind!" If it is a question of allergies, why not designate a bus a "pet bus" and owners with pets go on that one? Yes, it would have taken some extra coordination, but it would have saved SO MUCH heartache from people who had already LOST EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD so precious to them, including, in some cases, friends and family members.

[ntang.livejournal.com]

But you missed my main point:

"doesn't require food, water, or a place to dispose of waste".

Pets don't just take up space on peoples' lap, they take food, they take water, they have waste that needs to be disposed of...

[penchantnyc.livejournal.com]

They are probably just looking for any excuse to leave pets so that resources and personnel can be concentrated on people. I'm all for it, and I like oets, and have had them before. But, pets take resources (and need a lot of care) and can be a distraction to rescue workers. Same goes for people, but they are people. And, decisions need to be made for everybody (the humans). None of this individual basis stuff in thsi kind of crisis. As an example, who is going to explain to the people with the St Bernards that you laptop was allowed because it was small?

Non hurricane related. I have an aunt who is in a horrible living situation out of state because she can't move in with relatives because they won't take her cat. She can't even afford her rent. And she had thievs stalking her apartment and is afraid for her life. I understand that she loves her cat, but her own life should come first.

[zvuv.livejournal.com]

because it's hard enough to keep things orderly with humans.
because of the other passengers on the bus.
because, finally, pets might be able to survive without their owners.
they are animals, after all.

[drflup.livejournal.com]

Doze paw black folks shud be eating the damn pets just like dem paw yellah folks do.

Yes, goddamn yes, I am sick to fuckin death of people posting about the animals.

[zvuv.livejournal.com]

i agree.

[morgan78.livejournal.com]

I love animals, I've had pets.

Still, I agree with you.

[youraveragemess.livejournal.com]

I'd take my animals before I took my meds. And if you want to call me whatever because of it, that's peachy and add a hearty fuck you from me in response and we'll call this conversation over.

[jynxyjoe.livejournal.com]

motha f--king guy out here paid 350$ to fix his damned 15$ gerbal only to do what with it next? wait for it, wait for it, give it away. Thats right. these are the people i have to deal with day in and out.

350$ ohh god