Animals and Hurricane Katrina

[mac 2005]

A thousand pardons if someone else has posted this link, but my intentions are good...

Just learned that companion animals affected by Hurricane Katrina aren't necessarily allowed to evacuate to safe places with their families. I've now given money to support creatures of the 2-legged variety as well as the 4-legged variety that can't easily fend for themselves.

 

[mymemory]

I made the comment in a therad I started called Katrina.

Those animal will be eaten soon. Everytime there is an earthquake or a problem like this, when people ran out of food they started to eat dogs, cats, horses or any other animal they can find even at the local zoo.

In a situation like this services are so tight that animals are put on a side.

My father was a fireman and he created the Venezuelan Rsescue Team in mid 70's and he told me of course all those things. Late on we had some tragedies like that in Venezuela and I went with him. I already knew what the environment was about to be because in my early age I knew about everything.

Even if some one is seriously injure the rescue teams will take the healty people with more chances of survivour. Is a situation wher pragmatism comes first than morals.

 

[wdlove]

I have been concerned about the animals also. Most of the wild animals will be alright. The fear would be for the domestic animals, they depend on humans. This must be so scary for all of them.

 

[silentrage]

Another concern are the animals that were housed at the Audobon Zoo and the Aquarium of the Americas.

 

[kainjow]

Wow, people are dying, getting diseases, their lives are falling apart, etc, and you're concerned about the animals "affected"?

 

[combatcolin]

thats because the animlas were put there by humans.

Not an animal rights nutter, but wildlife can "sense" events that will endanger there life long before us humans decide that running way would be a good career move.

Donestic and zoo animals don't have that luxuory.

 

[silentrage]

Wow, people are dying, getting diseases, their lives are falling apart, etc, and you're concerned about the animals "affected"?

Isn't it okay to be concerned about both?

The death of animals may cause additional problems for the health of humans.

 

[mymemory]

Wow, people are dying, getting diseases, their lives are falling apart, etc, and you're concerned about the animals "affected"?

Well, combatcolin said perfectly. Is like you having a 3 year old kid and when things get tough in your house you left hin on the street.

All those animals at the acuariums and zoo are going to die or get eaten by some one. They are not guilty, they were used and atken from their habitat by humans, habitats that are already destroyed by humans too.

But who cares, humans are arrogants, can not live in peace with themselves and other species and are sucking the resources of the planet.

If you take a look, all the wild life is in perfect balance, all those animals can co-exist with each other and take from each other what they need.

The wild life in Africa and the Amazon have been like that for millions of years, the same with the dinosours. Everything is fine until a "superior" race call humans take over.

That is why animals stories in this tragedy are left on a side because are the ones that hurt the most, they are not guilty at all of what is going on.

 

[kainjow]

Ok, well I guess your view of animals' importance really depends on your view of how/why the world was created... so no point arguing

 

[combatcolin]

the thought of my pet dog being killed and eaten for food would horrify me.

But, as in in the Uk and can't really beging to imagine the 10th circle of hell that New Orleans is now residing i would think that desperate people are being pushed to desperate measures.

 

[wdlove]

Ok, well I guess your view of animals' importance really depends on your view of how/why the world was created... so no point arguing

God takes care of the animals. He put us here to have dominion over the animals and to care for our animals especially the domesticated. Has nothing to do with how the world was created. It is part to being human to care for our fellow man and the animals.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Wow, people are dying, getting diseases, their lives are falling apart, etc, and you're concerned about the animals "affected"?

I am concerned with the people as well as the animals but... Humans were unwise to build a city under sea level and choose to live there with that knowledge and given a chance to evacuate but ignored the warnings. I saw plenty of pictures of buses and cars that were flooded that could have been used to save lives. Poor or not, if they asked for help then someone would have helped.

Also it might be cheaper to buy everyone new homes in other cities or create a "newer" Orleans in a safer location rather than to rebuild. If they rebuild then I believe it was just politically motivated.

 

[solvs]

Ok, well I guess your view of animals' importance really depends on your view of how/why the world was created... so no point arguing

So... I guess you don't realize the wdlove is a devout Christian. Animals are living creatures too, and the devastation to the local wildlife is going affect people there as well. As said above, you do know you can care about both.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Isn't it okay to be concerned about both?

The death of animals may cause additional problems for the health of humans.

Well said.

For some of us, our four legged friends are as important as our two legged friends. And in some ways our four legged friends give us os much without asking for much in return (some love, food and water).

My Chewey knew when I needed him most, and when I needed my space. He never asked me for much beyond the three things I mentioned. He didn't get himself into debt, and ask me to bail him out with promises to repay - only to leave me with the debt. He didn't steal a credit card of mine and charge $3000, before I caught on.

For me the hardest thing I ever had to so far in my life (for those that have been following my saga, yes - even more difficult than selling my TH because of my ex's debt. Or even the filing of credit fraud charges on my ex) was to put Chewey up for adoption - only because my ex was more concerned about themselves than even our beloved Chewey.

The problem is that people view domestic animals as property, not as members of their family. What is frightening is the number of children that may have died, only because their "caretakers" were more concerned for themselves in the wake of Katrina.

Well, combatcolin said perfectly. Is like you having a 3 year old kid and when things get tough in your house you left hin on the street.

All those animals at the acuariums and zoo are going to die or get eaten by some one. They are not guilty, they were used and atken from their habitat by humans, habitats that are already destroyed by humans too.

But who cares, humans are arrogants, can not live in peace with themselves and other species and are sucking the resources of the planet.

If you take a look, all the wild life is in perfect balance, all those animals can co-exist with each other and take from each other what they need.

The wild life in Africa and the Amazon have been like that for millions of years, the same with the dinosours. Everything is fine until a "superior" race call humans take over.

That is why animals stories in this tragedy are left on a side because are the ones that hurt the most, they are not guilty at all of what is going on.

To be honest, I have not always seen eye-to-eye with your posts. (Though the dinosaur reference is a bit off - other factors than the human race intrusion played the sole factor in their demise.) But this post should rank among your best.

I am concerned with the people as well as the animals but... Humans were unwise to build a city under sea level and choose to live there with that knowledge and given a chance to evacuate but ignored the warnings. I saw plenty of pictures of buses and cars that were flooded that could have been used to save lives. Poor or not, if they asked for help then someone would have helped.

Also it might be cheaper to buy everyone new homes in other cities or create a "newer" Orleans in a safer location rather than to rebuild. If they rebuild then I believe it was just politically motivated.

Good points. That is why I have an issue in moving to SF, even though I want so much to live there in a NY minute. Bit extreme compared the idiocy and money spent over the years to keep NO as a "livable" city.

Given a number of 600K refugees. Using the "average" spoken of 2.5 per a household - that means 240K "families in need of help. Giving each "family" of "need" $250K to start a new life else where in the US (with strict provisions on how the money was spent ) that would mean $60 billion. So far we have spent three times that in Iraq. Or a tenth of the profit by Mobil Oil (IIRC) in the last quarter.

Hate to bring politics and religion (though in some circles today they are closely aligned) - I was taught by my church, that charity begins at home. But I see that in the current climate, we have something closer to "The Animal Farm" going on.

Heck, I was made by President Bush to try and feel for the loss of Trent Lotts home, and hope that they will be able to enjoy the new porch in the New Gulf Coast. For many of those that are left in NO, their home was the only thing that they had left of worth. They held hope against hope that they could hold on to that. For to be without that home meant they would not be able to afford to live in NO otherwise.

But it was heartening to see folks that clutched their four legged friends in their arms as they waded their way through that toxic stew. It was heartening to see some place their pets in buckets as they waded through that same stew. It was more heartening to see some "family members" being able to board the buses on the I-10 overpasses.

I am pained at seeing these images. For what would I do, if I lacked the resources to have protected me and my beloved Chewey? Some made the toughest choice they may have had to make. Others, it was easy.

Remember we are not talking about sending in the NG to rescue these "lost loved ones". These donations for animal rescue are going to organizations that are by far more dollar for dollar, more efficient at doing their work that even the Red Cross. I know firsthand, because of the efforts I made to get Chewey into a good home. I know personally that the "paid" worker from the rescue service I used, spent like 60 to 80 hours a week to do what was in her heart - the best for the animals - though she only got paid for 40.

Children and our pets deserve all that we can give them. They did not ask to come into our households. They just ask for love, food, and water. We should deliver nothing less.

 

[Sol]

Animal charity & criticism about it

It is good that some people are aware of the animals that were left behind. Those creatures are doomed and we can only hope that they do not suffer much before meeting their end.

Will the Humane Society of the United States achieve anything with their funds? Most likely some animals could be rescued and then 'put down' if no-one claims them within a certain time. I hope some program is put in place to find new homes for those rescued. Sympathy should go far in this tragedy.

Criticizing us for donating to animal charities makes no sense. Are we supposed to ignore this issue until all the people have been saved? By then it would be too late. Besides, the survivors on the ground would want someone to be doing something about the stray animals roaming around; at the very least someone should be collecting the corpses that will be spreading disease and misery.

There is nothing stopping anyone from donating for both the people and the animals. Of course some people just take the moral high-ground because it makes them feel superior to those of us who just feel sad and confused. If you do not like the idea of animal charities then put your money where your mouth is and donate to people charities. You would still be an as'ole but at least your money would be dong some good.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

It is good that some people are aware of the animals that were left behind. Those creatures are doomed and we can only hope that they do not suffer much before meeting their end.

Will the Humane Society of the United States achieve anything with their funds? Most likely some animals could be rescued and then 'put down' if no-one claims them within a certain time. I hope some program is put in place to find new homes for those rescued. Sympathy should go far in this tragedy.

Criticizing us for donating to animal charities makes no sense. Are we supposed to ignore this issue until all the people have been saved? By then it would be too late. Besides, the survivors on the ground would want someone to be doing something about the stray animals roaming around; at the very least someone should be collecting the corpses that will be spreading disease and misery.

There is nothing stopping anyone from donating for both the people and the animals. Of course some people just take the moral high-ground because it makes them feel superior to those of us who just feel sad and confused. If you do not like the idea of animal charities then put your money where your mouth is and donate to people charities. You would still be an as'ole but at least your money would be dong some good.

To be honest I look at the Humane Society to be a bloated agency that in the end does little to help the animals that needs help. In the case of Chewey, they only suggested that I take him to a shelter. Which would have met a very certain death for him.

I met someone from FOHA that worked tirelessly with HART to find a home for Chewey. To the point that a local unpaid volunteer took Chewey in, even though she had more than she could handle.

I was in tears as I called number after number to find a good home for Chewey. Some of you know of my plea here, and the willingness of some to take him in if I could get him to California and the such.

It is organizations like FOHA and HART (and now Noah's Wish) that I'll support in what ever way I can. The Humane Society was a group that suggested that I put Chewey down - in order to "save" him from an uncertain future. Only because they had no space for him.

 

[mac-er]

Ok, well I guess your view of animals' importance really depends on your view of how/why the world was created... so no point arguing

Republican alert!

I think he is trying to say that he believes man was put here by God to control the planet and ravage it and all living things on it.

I will let you know that only 1.5% of our DNA makes us human. We share something like...
98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees
75% of our DNA with dogs
33% of our DNA with daffodils.

So we are integrated with all living things on the planet and should have concern for all living things.

 

[Sol]

'Putting down' stray animals

The Humane Society was a group that suggested that I put Chewey down - in order to "save" him from an uncertain future. Only because they had no space for him.

I am under no illusions. Most of the animals the HSUS will rescue are sure to be 'put down.' Under these circumstances I am willing to accept that. The fact is that most stray animals will roam until they die from hunger or disease. There is not much that any charity organisation can do to stop this from happening.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Under these circumstances I am willing to accept that. The fact is that most stray animals will roam until they die from hunger or disease. There is not much that any charity organisation can do to stop this from happening.

You may not understand the abilities of "animals". They can survive. At what level of our acceptance is another matter. But what d we consider to be a "stray" is at issue for some of us.

My sister said a reporter that came across a "twin of Chewey in his "younger years". This dog was unwilling to accept "help" of clean water. He seem to refuse the offering. Knowing Chewey, this is no surprise to me.

But at the same point I could see him doing what was needed, even thought I would find it repulsive. The issue is that there are groups that are willing to take each forgotten pet at a a time.

They should be applauded....

 

[dops7107]

98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees

So we are integrated with all living things on the planet and should have concern for all living things.

Someone's talking sense... quite right mac-er. What exactly do people think we live on? There's a lot of unfounded arrogance out there.

As a matter of interest, we share 99% of our DNA sequences with chimps, in protein coding regions at least (link). Not that there aren't still major differences, since as you say we probably share a great deal in common with yeast.

 

[mac-er]

Someone's talking sense... quite right mac-er. What exactly do people think we live on? There's a lot of unfounded arrogance out there.

As a matter of interest, we share 99% of our DNA sequences with chimps, in protein coding regions at least (link). Not that there aren't still major differences, since as you say we probably share a great deal in common with yeast.

I still love that you can go out in your garden and see a daffodil and know that you share 33% of its DNA.

 

[edgarj]

Non-human Primates

I was worried about the 7,500+ monkeys (mostly rhesus macaques) at the Tulane National Primate center across the lake in Covington (largest in the US). Talk about a disaster, as many of these animals are infected with a variety of infectious diseases, some of which are human transmissible. Evidently (see Science news), they did a mass evacuation of the facility prior to the hurricane and the buildings faired well. If they had been as ill prepared as FEMA, LA would have had a wild monkey population for some time. Rounding up 7.5K monkeys in several gigantic fields is no mean feat, and obviously it went much better than human evacuations.

 

[geese]

I will let you know that only 1.5% of our DNA makes us human. We share something like...
98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees
75% of our DNA with dogs
33% of our DNA with daffodils.

So we are integrated with all living things on the planet and should have concern for all living things.

This is hovering dangerously close to the political thread.

But the above DNA stats you've quoted- why should the DNA make-up be an issue? What is the point you're trying to prove? Do you know what DNA is even?

We share 33% of DNA with Daffodils? So.... does that mean that we are a third plant life? How are we three-thirds similar to dogs then? The similarities dont mean anything- its the differences that count.

The DNA similarity arguement is a red herring, misleading and ultimatly meaningless. Lets be honest- no-one really knows (including me) what DNA actually is or does.

I'm not arguing against looking after animal and plant life- as humans its our duty to look after other life forms.

 

[dops7107]

This is hovering dangerously close to the political thread.

But the above DNA stats you've quoted- why should the DNA make-up be an issue? What is the point you're trying to prove? Do you know what DNA is even?

The point is that there is nothing that makes humans as special as we think we are. I could convincingly argue that the world was made for bacteria.

We share 33% of DNA with Daffodils? So.... does that mean that we are a third plant life? How are we three-thirds similar to dogs then? The similarities dont mean anything- its the differences that count.

These stats usually mean that we share biological processes in common with other organisms. In the case of plants, roughly one third of all the things that go on in plant cells also go on in human cells. We may get our energy differently, but we still have sex, grow, differentiate etc. etc.

The DNA similarity arguement is a red herring, misleading and ultimatly meaningless. Lets be honest- no-one really knows (including me) what DNA actually is or does.

It is partly misleading, I agree with that. The numbers usually relate to DNA sequences that code for proteins - not surprisingly, haemoglobin in a chimp is very similar to haemoglobin in a human. It is regulatory DNA sequences that differ greatly. Having said that, the statistics show that humans and chimps are, on the grand scale of living things, incredibly alike. Chimps have complex behaviours, the ability to feel emotion, make tools, solve problems. The big fallacy is thinking that humans are some pinnacle of evolution. We just show the most developed behaviours. I'm sure dogs have complex lives as far as they are concerned.

I'm not arguing against looking after animal and plant life- as humans its our duty to look after other life forms.

Correct - because we have the ability to alter our environment so readily and to the possible detriment of everything else.

 

[Don't panic]

...we probably share a great deal in common with yeast.

for example, the love for beer