basketcase
09-12-2005, 10:35 AM
Already I’ve seen several news segments about the plight of the animals abandoned in New Orleans, and the subject is now showing up on various Internet message boards.
The sticky question is, “What about the matter of disaster relief funds designated for saving the animals in New Orleans?”
As a pet owner (1 dog, 4 cats, all kept up to date on vaccinations, etc.) I well understand the enjoyment pets bring to us. But I have to say up front that if faced with a choice of getting into the rescue boat without my critters (and thereby saving my own life and/or that of my family), or staying behind to die with the animal -- I’ll get in the boat and leave the critter (flame suit securely zipped).
Beyond that, I have a pragmatic take on the difference between the value of human life and animal life, and what to do about the animals in question in New Orleans.
Many of those animals have now been traumatized, and have effectively reverted to a wild state. Capturing an animal in that setting is not as simple as "c'mere pooch," or "here kitty kitty." It is dirty and time consuming, and in the case of dogs that have "packed," it can be highly dangerous.
Next, having been exposed repeatedly to the chemicals and hazards of the waters, these animals will be (1) experiencing the health issues for themselves, and (2) posing a health problem for the human population. The danger to humans aside, pampering such an animal in a diseased state is not treating it humanely, but extending its misery. The animal is going to die anyway, and dumping money on the problem is not going to change that reality.
One of my children spent two summers volunteering at the local animal shelter, a.k.a., the "humane society." And I can tell you a lot of animal lovers are in denial about the matter.
Let's say these animals are captured, and placed in shelters. The shelters are already over-crowded, and the chances of local animals being adopted is very, very slim. Are we to think that people will suddenly turn out in droves and adopted a diseased animal from New Orleans?
Next, the cost of maintaining an animal in a shelter is well documented. But what many who swear by the shelters don't want to admit is that after a time the clock runs out -- and the equivalent of the canine and feline gas chamber is the destination. What the shelter actually does is give the person who is mentally unable to face up to it a vehicle for distancing him or herself from that reality.
So it seems to me the humane and reasonable thing to do is put them out with a simple head shot. It's quick, safe, and a lot cheaper than the other options.
Regarding the donation of funds, if someone chooses to spend their discretionary monies in that manner it is certainly their privilege. But I maintain the life of an animal is not equivalent to the life of a human, and that human life is infinitely more valuable than animal life. No apologies are offered for the position.
Finally, if (or when) your child comes in and says "I have a friend in school whose family was displaced by the hurricane," you need to be prepared to explain to yourself why you are willing to put money into an animal, instead of spending it on a person who can look at and talk to you -- and who might one day be your son or daughter in law.
Financially, emotionally, and socially these displaced families and particularly, the children whose lives have been turned upside down by this tragedy, need and deserve something better than what many so piously put into their animals.
As always, IMHO
The sticky question is, “What about the matter of disaster relief funds designated for saving the animals in New Orleans?”
As a pet owner (1 dog, 4 cats, all kept up to date on vaccinations, etc.) I well understand the enjoyment pets bring to us. But I have to say up front that if faced with a choice of getting into the rescue boat without my critters (and thereby saving my own life and/or that of my family), or staying behind to die with the animal -- I’ll get in the boat and leave the critter (flame suit securely zipped).
Beyond that, I have a pragmatic take on the difference between the value of human life and animal life, and what to do about the animals in question in New Orleans.
Many of those animals have now been traumatized, and have effectively reverted to a wild state. Capturing an animal in that setting is not as simple as "c'mere pooch," or "here kitty kitty." It is dirty and time consuming, and in the case of dogs that have "packed," it can be highly dangerous.
Next, having been exposed repeatedly to the chemicals and hazards of the waters, these animals will be (1) experiencing the health issues for themselves, and (2) posing a health problem for the human population. The danger to humans aside, pampering such an animal in a diseased state is not treating it humanely, but extending its misery. The animal is going to die anyway, and dumping money on the problem is not going to change that reality.
One of my children spent two summers volunteering at the local animal shelter, a.k.a., the "humane society." And I can tell you a lot of animal lovers are in denial about the matter.
Let's say these animals are captured, and placed in shelters. The shelters are already over-crowded, and the chances of local animals being adopted is very, very slim. Are we to think that people will suddenly turn out in droves and adopted a diseased animal from New Orleans?
Next, the cost of maintaining an animal in a shelter is well documented. But what many who swear by the shelters don't want to admit is that after a time the clock runs out -- and the equivalent of the canine and feline gas chamber is the destination. What the shelter actually does is give the person who is mentally unable to face up to it a vehicle for distancing him or herself from that reality.
So it seems to me the humane and reasonable thing to do is put them out with a simple head shot. It's quick, safe, and a lot cheaper than the other options.
Regarding the donation of funds, if someone chooses to spend their discretionary monies in that manner it is certainly their privilege. But I maintain the life of an animal is not equivalent to the life of a human, and that human life is infinitely more valuable than animal life. No apologies are offered for the position.
Finally, if (or when) your child comes in and says "I have a friend in school whose family was displaced by the hurricane," you need to be prepared to explain to yourself why you are willing to put money into an animal, instead of spending it on a person who can look at and talk to you -- and who might one day be your son or daughter in law.
Financially, emotionally, and socially these displaced families and particularly, the children whose lives have been turned upside down by this tragedy, need and deserve something better than what many so piously put into their animals.
As always, IMHO