| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed food |
 |
|
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n31520163-storm-gustav-pets/
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies.
I would much rather have government agencies spending resources on humans, not pets. A dollar spent to save a pet is a dollar not spent to save or better a human life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fascist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n31520163-storm-gustav-pets/
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies.
I would much rather have government agencies spending resources on humans, not pets. A dollar spent to save a pet is a dollar not spent to save or better a human life. |
From the article you linked:
| Quote: |
| Many owners stayed in the city during the catastrophic 2005 hurricane because they could not take their pets to shelters and could not bear to leave without them. |
As I understand it (from a documentary I watched) a lot of petowners in New Orleans risked their own lives (in some cases actually dying) and would not flee because they couldn't countenance leaving their pets behind. Many walked away from buses, when they realised their pets would not be allowed to accompany them. So in order to save humans, it seems a good idea to make provisions for pets with regard to future disasters.
Pets have been shown to prolong the lives of older or lonely folk. People with pets statistically not only live longer, but tend to have both better physical and mental health than those without pets. So, investing in pet care and pet rescue is not a bad investment, if you care about people and think the well being of the general human population is important.
Also the mental trauma and psychological torture a human might suffer for years after abandoning their faithful little companion, might cost the taxpayer a hefty sum in negative externalities, far exceeding the relatively small cost of saving pets.
Much more cost effective in the longterm to pay for animal rescue, I'd wager. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But we have enough dollars to include pets, Mindmetoo.
Kill our pets, somehow skin them, without necessarily (or probably) even being able to salt and/or cook them before eating them. I can imagine a scenario where we might have to make such choices. But not in an industrialized country such as America with a wealthy, powerful centralized govt that has not collapsed following nuclear war or social revolution a la Mad Max. Further, I think, personally, I would probably choose to starve rather than harm my cat.
New Orleans 2005 was a clusterfuck of the first magnitude not likely to repeat itself in the foreseable future. For the moment, the govts are on their toes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| not likely to repeat itself in the foreseable future. |
I knew it! In your secret heart of heart you expect Obama to win.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| not likely to repeat itself in the foreseable future. |
I knew it! In your secret heart of heart you expect Obama to win. |
I believe it was the Democrat leaders in New Orleans and Louisiana that failed the people We have a federal system for a reason. It was the responsibility of the State to handle the disaster preparation for Katrina.
The left tends to forget that we have State governments. They would like everyone to believe that George W Bush is directly responsible for everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fishead soup
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JG Ballard High Rise |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| They would like everyone to believe that George W Bush is directly responsible for everything. |
If you mean Bush's bad karma being responsible for Gustav, I would like to see you disprove it.
The Mississippi River runs between 10 states; that makes it largely under federal jurisdiction. Part of the federal government's job is to control the river through the dredging and levees. The Army Corps of Engineers has played a significan role in that over the decades.
Disasters the size of Katrina are the responsibility of the whole country. You can't evacuate tens of thousands of people to Texas and expect Texans to shoulder the entire burden. If California has a big quake, we all owe it to ourselves to help out. That is what FEMA is for. The Bush administration is responsible for what FEMA did or didn't do under his watch. On top of everything, after the disaster of 9/11 you would naturally expect the government to prepare for disaster relief. After all, that was the basis for the Patriot Act--the bad guys are trying to get us. It's only common sense to prepare for that contingency, yet when the first big natural disaster struck four years later, the government was unprepared AFTER SPENDING BILLIONS TO GET PREPARED. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
So come a major disaster, MM2 would be trying to eat pussy, and you would be rushing over to the nearest nursing home for a tasty treat. Good heavens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:20 am Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
So come a major disaster, MM2 would be trying to eat pussy, and you would be rushing over to the nearest nursing home for a tasty treat. Good heavens. |
The two aren't mutually exclusive either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
Just be sure they're infirm. I'd hate to hear that you had been beaten to death by an old crone with her cane.
Want me to try to set up a match for you with my mom just to see how you'd do? She's 84 and fairly tough old bird. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Want me to try to set up a match for you with my mom just to see how you'd do? She's 84 and fairly tough old bird. |
I'll be sure to drop you a PM the next time I'm in Iowa during a flood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:52 am Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
Last time I checked they were human. I would rather have limited resources going to rescuing them than pets. That's my only point. We can never bring an ideal number of resources to bear in any disaster. Pets should be at the bottom of the list. That's the whole of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:00 am Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
Last time I checked they were human. I would rather have limited resources going to rescuing them than pets. That's my only point. We can never bring an ideal number of resources to bear in any disaster. Pets should be at the bottom of the list. That's the whole of it. |
And that's right, in principle. But when people basically tie themselves to their pets then it's a choice between saving animals, or killing people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
